|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/13/2007 : 06:37:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
filthy said:
| But I balk at raising a cloned human to adulthood. I see no good reason for it. |
But is that just a reaction to something new? The Kingsmen once had difficulty getting radio play, and faced wide criticism, because of the implied sex content of their songs. These days the only thing not played on the radio is direct profanity.
The "I see no good reason for it" argument just doesn't hold water. If there were some reason to think that cloning would be harmful, then there may be an argument against doing it. We don't know what we will ultimately learn from this science, and that alone is (IMO) justification to proceed as long as there is no harm caused.
We are already cloning everything from livestock to pets. It is just a matter of time before a human is cloned, if it hasn't happened in secret already.
However, on this entire topic my primary concern is the study of theraputic cloning. This field needs to see full support from governments and scientists need to answer the fearmongering with convincing and rational education. No, the primary objectors will never be swayed, but the majority of people already favor this research and we should not allow the religious extremists to set our science policies.
|
A personal opinion. I can't bring myself to approve of making a clone for, as 'mooner put it: on-hand, spare parts. I'm all for theraputic cloning and I think that it is idiotcy that the shithead Bush was allowed put limits on it. That bastard has a lot to answer for.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 07:12:40 [Permalink]
|
, filthy said:
| A personal opinion. I can't bring myself to approve of making a clone for, as 'mooner put it: on-hand, spare parts. |
Oh, I agree. Such a thing would be fairly abhorent, since you'd be "farming" people for parts.
I thought your objection was more generalized, including reproductive cloning as an option for those who want children.
I agree that the idea is a bit , but I think that is just my own reaction to a new concept. However, I can't think of any objection to reproductive cloning that isn't just as valid if applied to invitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood. That all I was saying there.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 07:49:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
, filthy said:
| A personal opinion. I can't bring myself to approve of making a clone for, as 'mooner put it: on-hand, spare parts. |
Oh, I agree. Such a thing would be fairly abhorent, since you'd be "farming" people for parts.
I thought your objection was more generalized, including reproductive cloning as an option for those who want children.
I agree that the idea is a bit, but I think that is just my own reaction to a new concept. However, I can't think of any objection to reproductive cloning that isn't just as valid if applied to invitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood. That all I was saying there.
|
Perhaps I worded it poorly; I do that, now & again. I agree, although, with the world's population growing as it is, I have some reservations. Never the less, I think that the science should be pursued to it's ultimate conclusion(s), or at least as close as science ever gets to ultimate conclusions (if indeed there is any such a thing as 'ultimate').
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 08:31:06 [Permalink]
|
In some cases, I think cloning should be mandatory. There should be at minimum a few thousand Angelina Jolies running around, just to even my odds a bit.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 08:36:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
In some cases, I think cloning should be mandatory. There should be at minimum a few thousand Angelina Jolies running around, just to even my odds a bit.
|
Oh come on. She's not that hot.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 09:15:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by H. Humbert
In some cases, I think cloning should be mandatory. There should be at minimum a few thousand Angelina Jolies running around, just to even my odds a bit.
|
Oh come on. She's not that hot.
|
But Bridgett Bardot most certainly was! So was Grace Kelly and Kim Novak. (Da filth writhes in a great, heaving spasms of futile, carnal lust.)
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 10:58:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by H. Humbert
In some cases, I think cloning should be mandatory. There should be at minimum a few thousand Angelina Jolies running around, just to even my odds a bit.
|
Oh come on. She's not that hot.
|
But Bridgett Bardot most certainly was! So was Grace Kelly and Kim Novak. (Da filth writhes in a great, heaving spasms of futile, carnal lust.)
|
Yeah. And so's my grandmother. What's the average age around here anyway? Sheesh.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 16:57:27 [Permalink]
|
HalfMooner.....
You said:It clearly could be handy, and even a life-saver, for each of us to own a clone of ourselves for possible spare parts as needed. These could probably be raised most efficiently on stock farms. No parental nurturing, language skills or education required, just common innoculations, veterinary care, and feedings of monkey chow.
But, IMO, it would be wrong. This would be a kind of human cloning I would oppose. I haven't seen such a thing proposed seriously by anyone. |
First, let me say that I agree with you 100%. However,I am curious as to why, in your opinion, it would be wrong? In fact, I am curious as to why I think it would be wrong! Your views would be useful.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 20:14:38 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck asked:
First, let me say that I agree with you 100%. However,I am curious as to why, in your opinion, it would be wrong? In fact, I am curious as to why I think it would be wrong! Your views would be useful.
|
Speaking only for myself, I'd say that we here in the US have based a good portion of our ethical thinking on the philosophy of natural rights. An ovewhelmingly common theme is the concept of treating others as we want to be treated. I can't think of any set of circumstances where I would approve of raising humans as if they were farm animals, existing only for the eventual slaughter.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 20:54:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I can't think of any set of circumstances where I would approve of raising humans as if they were farm animals, existing only for the eventual slaughter. |
What if their development as zygotes could be precisely and unerringly modified so that the farmed clones never grew more nervous tissue than the minimum required for maintaining functional organs? In other words, what if they couldn't think or feel at all, ever? I'd go so far as to suggest growing them without heads, but replacement eyes are already something we need.
This, of course, eliminates the (incredibly slim) possibility of having one's memories and personality transferred into a new, fresh brain, free from the physical ravages of Alzheimer's or alcoholism. But most people die with highly functional brains, anyway.
Edited to add: would people be as horrified at how veal is made if we could grow calves without heads or legs? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 21:13:06 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W asked:
What if their development as zygotes could be precisely and unerringly modified so that the farmed clones never grew more nervous tissue than the minimum required for maintaining functional organs? In other words, what if they couldn't think or feel at all, ever? I'd go so far as to suggest growing them without heads, but replacement eyes are already something we need.
|
In that specific circumstance, if those technical challenges could be overcome, then farm away. It'd be a bit on the morbid side, but as long as no harm was being done to people....
I still prefer my hypothetical technological solution. It seems it would be much easier to manage the storage of purely lab grown organs with an outgrowth of current tissue culturing technologies. This can also allow us to address some other specific concerns that follow along with organ transplantation, such as organ size. A lab grown organ will likely be able to be ordered to specific physical dimensions, where the "farm" grown variety will not match well in some cases due to the extreme environmental differences between raising a person and growing a torso in a vat.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 21:16:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
In some cases, I think cloning should be mandatory. There should be at minimum a few thousand Angelina Jolies running around, just to even my odds a bit.
|
Hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions. And we will also have to cull the dead wood out like the Paris Hiltons, Brittany Spearses, and Matthew Hales. Although, then we get into eugenesism.
Let's be a little more realistic about the circles we all travel in. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2007 : 06:44:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
This, of course, eliminates the (incredibly slim) possibility of having one's memories and personality transferred into a new, fresh brain, free from the physical ravages of Alzheimer's or alcoholism. But most people die with highly functional brains, anyway. |
I've always approached this from the POV that I am my brain. If you take my personality and memories and put them into a fresh brain then let the old one die, then I'm dead and there's a copy of me walking around that thinks it's actually me with a new lease on life. But it's not. Same goes with uploading into a computer. It's not you, just a clever technological copy that thinks it's you.
I imagine a far future with nanobots, or something similar, that go into your brain and clean up all the aluminum plaque or whatever, and repair and replace the aging and dying cells and blood vessels. They refurbish, rebuild, replace, and even enhance your brain, little by little, right in your very own skull, even while you use it. I wonder, when its all set and done, is the result really you?
If you effectively replace your brain bit by tiny bit over a period of time, the only functional difference between that and transfering memory and structure to a new brain is continuity. In the bit by bit there's no sudden off here and on there. It's smooth and unnoticable.
I wonder, is this smooth change any different than life? Is the brain of a 5 year old the same brain of the adult 30 years later? Clearly not and in more ways than one. So is the 5 yr old and the the 35 year old the same "you"? And right now, what can properly be said about the disposition of the "you" of 30 years ago? What is "you" anyway?
Edited to add: would people be as horrified at how veal is made if we could grow calves without heads or legs?
|
Yes, they would be horrified. That's unnatural. It's a perversion of nature, an abomination. All the emotional responses apply...
Consider this - animal husbandry is like a species level partnership. Cattle, pigs, and chickens are are helped along in their generation to generation survival by our efforts. We feed them, give them shelter, and ensure their successful reproduction into a new generation. In return, they provide us with a sure source of nutrition and help guarantee our next generation. Everybody wins. By many measures, they are very highly successful species in an evolutionary sense.
But genetically engineering a headless calf, or taken a step further, vat grown haunches of meat; that's something different. We break with the partnership by now getting meat from a partial organism, something that can't survive independantly of us. If we withdraw our aid or we go extinct, they have no hope of going on alone. Are they even an organism anymore? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2007 : 07:56:17 [Permalink]
|
chaloobi said:
| We break with the partnership by now getting meat from a partial organism, something that can't survive independantly of us. If we withdraw our aid or we go extinct, they have no hope of going on alone. Are they even an organism anymore? |
Pigs will get along just fine without us. So too will cows and chickens.
Pigs especially though. They are tough customers. They can eat nearly anything and they survive/reproduce in the wild exceptionally well. In places like FL, where they have no remaining natural predators, they have become a nuisance animal. (well, I think we imported them to FL, some got loose, and then we ended up nearly driving the big predators extinct. 20 years ago it was illegal to hunt an alligator here, some permits issued these days, and the panther is almost gone still) So much of a nuisance that you can hunt wild pigs all year round with only a basic FL hunting license. Farmers want them exterminated.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2007 : 08:41:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
chaloobi said:
| We break with the partnership by now getting meat from a partial organism, something that can't survive independantly of us. If we withdraw our aid or we go extinct, they have no hope of going on alone. Are they even an organism anymore? |
Pigs will get along just fine without us. So too will cows and chickens.
Pigs especially though. They are tough customers. They can eat nearly anything and they survive/reproduce in the wild exceptionally well. In places like FL, where they have no remaining natural predators, they have become a nuisance animal. (well, I think we imported them to FL, some got loose, and then we ended up nearly driving the big predators extinct. 20 years ago it was illegal to hunt an alligator here, some permits issued these days, and the panther is almost gone still) So much of a nuisance that you can hunt wild pigs all year round with only a basic FL hunting license. Farmers want them exterminated.
|
Read more carefully (If you find it long-winded, you should have seen the first draft  ).
In the text you quoted, I was referring to the genetically engineered headless calf for veal production mentioned by Dave or the scenario of a vat-grown haunch of meat. If these things became our primary meat source, the animal species they originated from would no longer benefit from any kind of 'partnership' with humanity, since the portions of them we would be cultivating are not independantly viable organisms. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cloning Ban?
