PDA

View Full Version : Cloning



Maciamo
28-12-02, 11:16
As Kakuzen pointed out, the first human clone has officially been born (but it's very possible it isn't the first, just that others were kept secret).

What is your opinion about cloning ?

Personally, I don't see any problem with cloning.

As in my opinion humans are no more than more intelligent animals, human and animal or plant cloning should not be seen differently. There has been sheep or other animals cloned years ago, but the population has accepted it. What's the difference with humans. I hear people saying its dangerous. Why ? Why human clones are more dangerous than animal's ?

Lots of people overreact because they are affraid of what they don't know. If the society had decided to ban planes because humans were not supposed to fly, where would we be now ?

Furthermore, clones have always existed naturally; we call them twins.

In vitro reproduction is praised by some for giving the opportunity to infertile couples to have a baby; why is it so much more shocking with cloning ?

Genetically modified food is readily available, but the same people that defend it now want to ban human cloning. The only reason behind this must be religious, not rational or scientific. Once we have started muddling with DNA, be it that of a plant, a cat or a human, the most important ethic step was taken. Relatively few people would argue that GM food is morally condemnable (they just refrain from eating it if they feel affraid). Scientist have been searching for a way cure hereditary diseases or mental "weaknesses" (a euphemism for illness) and when people view it like that, it is praiseworthy. Once we talk about making twins in the same tubes that have been used for decades with in vitro, people panic and call a immediate international ban. Did I miss something ?

Maciamo
29-12-02, 02:59
I have just seen that my comment has been selected (with plenty of others) and highlighted by the BBC on its Talking Point section (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2610993.stm). Always make you feel like you exist. :) ;)

thomas
30-12-02, 00:59
Congratulations Maciamo, you're quoted quite prominently! :)

I'm not an ardent advocat of cloning, but also not opposed. There's always the danger of abuse, that's why I'd opt for sound legal fundaments. Hm, some of the religious arguments against cloning found on BBC's Talking Point are quite irritating...

Maciamo
30-12-02, 06:15
I'd like to add a comment about the opposition between stem cell cloning or full babies cloning, in reaction with comments I have read or heard recently.

Most people tend at least to agree that cloning stem cells for medical reason is a good thing. What people are usually affraid of is to see an army of 100 people the same like in some sci-fi movies. I don't know why anyone should do that. I am not against regulations of such excess.

However, I don't see any problem with cloning a baby to the image of someone (most likely an adult). The baby would have the same DNA, but would be born at a different epoch, place and have a completely different life whatsoever. Our environment and education are certainly play a much more essential role in the development of one's personality and conduct that the genes alone. Even intelligence is nothing genetically without a good education, nutrition and a positive environment. Just take 2 (real) twins, separated from birth and raised in completely different families, social background, even in different languages. These twins, sharing the same DNA, will have little in common except the physical appearance and maybe resistance, immunity, etc. I know that because I have read a lot about such cases of twins in psychological, educational or neuroscientific books. I know a few real twins myself. A pair of them, raised in the same family, looked exactly identical, but once you got to know them, they had very different interests and quite different character too (one was much kinder than the other, for instance).

Therefore, I am almost convinced that if you cloned a Hitler or Einstein, the clone, raised in a different world, the former would not become a dictator or racist, and the latter probably not a reknown genius (but possibly a mathemtician or scientist). At best, they could clone Brad Pitt and still have a handsome clone, but not necessarily bound to become an actor.
:p

thomas
30-12-02, 08:58
A lot of people have no clue what cloning actually means and conjure images that seem to originate right from Hollywood. While I am not so fond of experimenting with Hitler's, Einstein's or Pitt's genetical info cloning could result in immense medical progress. However, access to such technology should be clearly restricted. It's is very unfortunate that a doomsday sect made the headlines a few days ago.

Maciamo
30-12-02, 09:50
I took the example of Brad Pitt because some people fear that the society, in a fit of eugenia, start cloning celebrities or beautiful people and that we'll end up seeing everybody look the same in the streets. Because such concern is widespread, I am fairly sure that it won't happen - at least not in a large scale. Very few people want "perfect" children that are not "genetically" theirs.

If they start cloning themselves, the good point is that one can give the best education possible to their clone (BTW, they probably won't want 2 the same) as they know themselves better than anybody else. The common mistake parents make is believing their (true) children are like them and deciding what they should do in function of their own desires. Natural children are only 50% similar to each parent and the resulting genetical bland is gives more often than not a very different individual. That is the cause of most parent-child problems. Parents's ideals often don't match their children's. With clones, this barrier won't exist anymore and the parent (don't need 2 anymore) can be in perfect harmony with his cloned baby. It surely sounds shocking nowadays, but it might well be the future of our civilisation. Or will it be ? Not everybody likes themselves enough to want to be cloned. My impression is that more people still prefer having children naturally with their loved one rather than having a child 100% like them. Others are affraid of what their children might look like (fear of being disappointed with their "life-investment") and would give a lot of money either to customize their offspring (genetical engineering) or simply be cloned (usually when they feel superior to other people).

thomas
30-12-02, 10:34
Here's a FAQ page on cloning, quite interesting

=> http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cloning/cloningfaq.jsp

FAQs included:

Is cloning "unnatural"?

Is an identical twin essentially the same as a clone?

Could some lunatic clone Hitler if human cloning were perfected?

Would a clone have a soul?

Could cloning be used to create "super warriors" or super-intelligent people?

Could cloning be used to save endangered species?

Could clones be "farmed" to provide spare body parts for their "parent" clone without problems of tissue rejection?

They are pretty frank in regard the fact that human genetics are still in a very early stage, as most of their answers are "possibly, yes" or "probably not".

One thing is for sure: scientists, philosophers and theologians will need to work on something like a "General Genetical Ethics Code". A lot of SF authors and literary scientists like Victor Asimov have already laid the foundations for such issues.

Maciamo
30-12-02, 15:22
I've found an interesting article that confirms what I said about twins : http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Cloning-Twins.html


They're 10-year-old identical twins. So, just like a clone and its progenitor, they have identical genes.


They do look alike; even teachers mix them up. But Noel is about five pounds lighter than Holly. Noel has pierced ears; Holly isn't interested.

Noel is the more mechanically minded and ``definitely more of a go-getter,'' says their mother, Mary. Holly is ``more laid-back, she's more the peacemaker.''
[...]
But even identical twins are influenced by nongenetic factors -- starting with the womb and extending to parents, friends, opportunities in life, chance occurrences -- that influence who we are.

Since a clone and its progenitor would be born into different families at different times, these nongenetic factors could be expected to be more powerful.
[...]
Studies show that, in general, the correlation between identical twins is strong for height, less strong for IQ, lesser still for weight and then personality, Plomin said.



For all their differences, ``identical twins are more identical than clones will ever be''

Quite convincing. They also destroy the popular believe that cloning Michael Jordan or Mozart would make it possible to have a perfect basketball team or for Mozart's clone to continue his predecessor's work.

Maciamo
30-12-02, 15:42
I'll answer these FAQ myslef without looking at the source to see if my opinion coincide :

Is cloning "unnatural"?

Depends on your definition of natural. It surely isn't supernatural, as we can do it. It's man-made, but not less natural than taking medicines, having an organ-transplant or communicating by mobile phones (all these things aren't availble "naturally" without human intervention).

Is an identical twin essentially the same as a clone?

Yes. They are even more similar as they were born together. As they are usually also raised together, that makes them even more similar (education, nutrition, environment, family, school...). Look at the previous post.

Could some lunatic clone Hitler if human cloning were perfected?

Theu could, but that wouldn't mean anything. A clone of Hitler would have a compltely different personality as he would not have the same life at all. They have more chance to educate any child to become a nazi dictator than try the clone. Anyway, the society is different and nobody would listen to nazi propaganda (which furthermore is prohibited in most Western countries).

Would a clone have a soul?

Not more than anybody (I don't believe in the "soul" concept as an Atheist). Next question !

Could cloning be used to create "super warriors" or super-intelligent people?

Not cloning, but genetical engineering, yes. However it would require a lot more knowledge than we have now and children would need to develop their skills afterwards. As we saw with real twins, IQ or physical condition isn't very much genetical (just a bit). Any athlete would become a worm without training. Any gifted child a riff-raff without education (even autodidact).

Could cloning be used to save endangered species?

Yes ! That's why I am totally in favour of it. If we can preserve the DNA of each species (plant and animal), we are also able to recreate each of them at any time in the future if they become extinct (because today's society hasn't been able to protect them).

Could clones be "farmed" to provide spare body parts for their "parent" clone without problems of tissue rejection?

Organs or stem cells could be farmed without nervous system. It's one of the positive aspects of cloning as it will allow significant medical possibilities (cure and replace virtually anything in the body, even the neurons by implants, which could fight up aging and give us possibilities to live for several centuries). Who's still against ?

thomas
30-12-02, 15:56
Yep, pretty close. :victory:

I like the aspect of saving endangered species most:


At the moment its success rate is very low (Dolly was only cloned after 276 tries) but if this can be improved on it might well turn out to be useful to increase the population of hard-to-breed animals. Extinct animals (or animals without females) would be more difficult. A female can't normally give birth to an animal of a different species, although in certain cases a female of a closely-related species could give birth to a clone of a different species.

Maciamo
30-12-02, 16:13
Yes, and I am pretty sure it will one day be possible to give birth to any extinct species in an artificial foetus.

BTW, could mammoth be born from elephant ?

Look at this : Cow success may help clone mammoth (http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news280.htm)

And that's in Japan, mind you ! That's not off-topic anymore. :D

Twisted
30-12-02, 17:30
I'm just wondering... what would we do with a mammoth, except put it in a zoo? Let it loose in the wild and you'll probably be disturbing the foodchain. Could be good, could be bad, could very well be unpredictable.

And that goes for genetic engineering too. Not so much for cloning, but genetic engineering is likely to cause very unpredictable results.

What would happen if a rogue gene would enter and interact in an established environment? Very unpredictable...

n_my_hrt
31-12-02, 20:51
:blush:

What is cloning, just for your information God have made cloning since a long time how? I think you have seen twins in your life that what cold God cloning.

Another thing these sinictes or what ever they call themself from where they brought the egg which they will make the baby from can tell me, and how made the egg who is the creater?

For God sake humans I think we have damge the world enguh we are not in need or another Fornkkshting .

God above all

Love KT

thomas
18-01-03, 14:45
Some related news:

Human clone firm claims first cloned Japanese on the way: report

A cloning firm funded by the Raelians, the sect which recently claimed to have succeeded in producing two cloned humans, says the world's first cloned Japanese baby will be born next week, a news report says.

Clonaid president Dr Brigitte Boisselier has told Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS) the Japanese baby would be born on Monday local time.

The baby was cloned with cells taken from a two-year-old boy who was killed in a car accident, Dr Boisselier told the Japanese television network, without saying where the baby would be born.

=> http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-18jan2003-75.htm

SirJeannot
20-01-03, 16:20
damn, that reminds me the subject of the english exam composition :o

GaijinGirl
16-05-03, 21:44
As far as I can tell, the visceral fear of cloned armies or Hitler: The Sequel isn't the basis of popular rejection of the idea of cloning nor is it the most compelling argument against it. I see it as a question of dignity: is the exploitation of human cells a violation of human dignity, and by extension, human rights? This question is very similar to the one at the root of the abortion issue except "destruction" is substituted for "exploitation."

The way I see it, the concept of a violation of human dignity presupposes that there is something extra-special about being human that grants us a dignity to be violated. A Christian would say that that something is having an immortal soul, and would define "human" as a being with an immortal soul. This is a simple identification and doesn't explain how dignity enters the question, yet a large amount of people agree that it does simply by ascribing to the belief in basic human rights. A materialist might say that there is no such special quality, but would then have to argue that humans do not have and do not deserve to have basic human rights, in which case the whole issue would be moot anyway. (Then he would jump through a series of utilitarian hoops to show that we can still have rights if we want to, even if we don't deserve them.)

Thus, the question within the question is, "Is a homo sapiens cell human?"
Which can be reformulated into "Does that cell have dignity?" or "Is that cell deserving of basic human rights?"

The similar moral question that intrigues me more is "Should a cell that has the potential of being human be treated as if it had the same value as a human?"

My answer to this question, as anyone's answer would, depends upon what I believe a human to be, which is primarily an aesthetic belief. I believe that "human" is what we use to refer to homo sapiens while emphasizing the fact that we have evolved consciousness (and if not the only consciousness, then the most advantageous and visibly effective one). I call my belief aesthetic because I find the fact that we are animals, have the ability to reflect, and can discuss these questions to be a beautiful thing; it's sort of like cheering for the home team. Since I am such a big fan of Team Human, I am naturally very interested in any potential players. But are they actual players to me? No. Do they deserve special consideration from me? Yes. Why special consideration? For purely aesthetic reasons; I like Team Human the best, and I like things that are similar or somehow related to Team Human. An analogy: You like the Dallas Cowboys the best. You like a t-shirt that says "Dallas Cowboys" on it, too, but not as much as you like the actual team.

A single cell that shares the part of my genetic code that makes me homo sapiens is clearly not a human because a human is multicellular, even though it holds the potential for developing consciousness, my definition of the x variable in being human. At two cells, there is greater potential, and at a billion, even greater potential. However, a tiger, a frog, a tree, a moss, a femur, a kidney, and the polar ice caps all hold a kind of static potential for that special something, the x variable of consciousness, but I would say they have no chance of it developing. It would be a survival disadvantage to attempt the useless enterprise of nursing pebbles and fungi to that mystery breaking point and into consciousness, so we have to have some kind of taxonomic caste system in which we, the brahmin homo sapiens, who have the highest probability of being conscious in the next moment are at the top and the thing or group of things with the lowest chance are at the bottom.

It is in this caste system that the cloning issue and the abortion issue diverge in my thoughts. A prenatal or gestating unicellular homo sapiens, even a cloned one, has a potential that, all circumstances being favorable, will develop into a consciousness within a finite amount of time. A cloned kidney does not. I may have many warm feelings towards that kidney. I may like it a lot. If I am going to die if I do not have it surgically implanted in me, that kidney is not high up enough in the caste system for me to worry about its dignity or autonomy. (I will refrain from discussing abortion.)

If anyone has deciphered this mess of nonsense, they might have seen the implication for another cloning issue here: What about a body engineered to be born (from womb or test tube) without a brain (one of the unfavorable circumstances) and intended to be used solely for its organs? The idea is repugnant to me, but my little ramble depends on my assertion that I am more than the sum of my parts.


[Incidentally, I don't mean to advocate our remaining species-centric. I think our species has developed to a point where we can and should broaden our range of protection and regard in the consciousness caste system without worrying about our own species survival.]

[[Why, yes! I do like to read sci-fi sometimes!]]

::goes outside for a :smoke: ::

eimik
17-05-03, 00:39
The thing about GM food is that you dont clearly know about the side effects. Sure there are no side effects right now, but what about 20-30 years from now? What if you had third arm sticking out of your head after eating GM food. That'd be crazeee.

Sure cloning may save lives and yadda yadda, but then no one would die.

yah i sorry i cant ramble on this but yah...

jeisan
17-05-03, 01:10
yeah it could cause a serious over-population problem, imagine tokyo if everyone lived to be twice their normal age putting in all their young organs and ish. "clone i need those eyes!!! and throw in a kidney while youre at it." itd be kinda creepy to see some who looks 50 but is actually 150.

Maciamo
18-05-03, 04:19
@Gaijingirl

If humans are at the brahmin in the animal castes, shouldn't it be logical to classify each and every (genetically different) human from the most to the least developped, intelligent, capable, strong, beautiful, etc. ? The difficulty is choosing the criteria... Not everyone can be beautiful, intelligent and physically resistant at the same time. But among 100.000 people, some we surely be better in every respect than others. Being born and raised i a sane and favourable environment and having a good education certainly has a more decisive influence than DNA, but that's still a fact that a good-looking, healthy, intelligent and well-educated person cannot be compared to a malnourished and undereducated one.

If humans are superior to animals because they are more intelligent, then intelligence should also be a factor to classify humans and tell which have more rights than others. Do you see where I am going ? Nature doesn't like equality. It's thanks to diversification of life that evolution was possible and human exist. Evolution has always been the survival of the strongest and best adapted, not giving everybody equal chances. That is also true between humans.

@cloning or GM ?

I think lots of folk here are still confusing cloning and genetic engineering. "A body engineered to be born without brain" is not cloning, for I have never heard of any human being naturally born without a brain whose DNA could be "copied and pasted" to make a clone. Playing with DNA may be scary, but that's justly not the point of cloning. It's the ignorance of most people (even at government level) that has allowed genetic engineering to be legal and cloning illegal in most countries nowadays, when it should be the opposite. The US are the first to promote genetical enineering (all the GM products), but also the most virulent opponent to simple cloning. What's wrong in people's mind there ?

Maciamo
18-05-03, 04:38
Originally posted by jeisan
yeah it could cause a serious over-population problem, imagine tokyo if everyone lived to be twice their normal age putting in all their young organs and ish. "clone i need those eyes!!! and throw in a kidney while youre at it." itd be kinda creepy to see some who looks 50 but is actually 150.

If people only replace their organs (in case of cancer, diseases, etc) to live longer, then it's going to be a serious problem because their brains continue their degeneration, so that all these "physically healthy" elderly would actually be completely unproductive, slow-witted, incapable of learning and adapting to new technologies and ideas, lacking imagination, and most probably boring. That'd be awful ! There are already too many oldies in politics and administration that keep refusing change and reform (especially in Japan) and ae a pain in the ss for younger generation.

If only neuron implants were possible, people could live with young and fresh memory and reasoning abilities till their old age, which would be absolutely wonderful. In this case, I would at least understand why respect for the elderly is important, since they'd have a much larger knowledge, experience AND still be able to make sense when they speak and be up to date with modern knowledge. However, a skull's size is limited and we won't be able to add neurons eternally ; maybe just replace the ones wasted on sex and alcohol. :D

GaijinGirl
18-05-03, 07:34
If humans are at the brahmin in the animal castes, shouldn't it be logical to classify each and every (genetically different) human from the most to the least developped, intelligent, capable, strong, beautiful, etc. ? The difficulty is choosing the criteria... Not everyone can be beautiful, intelligent and physically resistant at the same time.

Yes, unfortunately, it is logical, and rather offends one's sense of fairness. When I think of humanity as a unit among other different units in the context of The Animal Kindom (echoechoechoecho), our clearest differentiating point is the conscious intelligence that is the jewel of our animal setting. Yet it is that very gem that makes it possible to consider humanity as its own kingdom with its own set of rules and criterion.

The point I was making was not that intelligence must be the criterion for making value decisions; my point was that even if you decide on a criterion for judgement, how do you judge? Using my example of intelligence as a criterion, which I favor, there is no clear point at which one goes from being non-intelligent to being intelligent. If you assume that there is this theoretical breaking point, you can follow the instinctive animal kingdom logic to its conclusion. A caste system somehow always shows up in this kind of logic. The most prevalent criterion-based caste system that figures in the cloning debate (actually, in most ethical debates) is Christian.
But I don't like to talk about religion.
:p

maji
26-08-03, 15:40
cloning is necessary. without cloning many medicines wouldnt be available today and a many peoples life would be a nightmare because of that. cloning is the only way to deal with certein diseases and i understand but oppose people who are against cloning and thus against help for many people just because of their belief. if we have the possibility to research matters that can help us we must do so imho.

Rosie
28-08-03, 04:35
Hehe..I would love to clone myself someday....:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

grunt2345
31-08-03, 18:42
:angryfire :angryfire
It's insane. Do we not have enough "fake" individuals on this earth already? I can not find one good reason for cloning. Fill me in... What is the purpose. Please!?

Rosie
31-08-03, 20:30
Not tellin' you, coz you're freaking me out with the "!". Can tell you're one angry person. Stay away from me, please.
:)

Satori
19-10-03, 06:14
Maciamo,

I completely agree with you on this one! And congratulations on the BBC acknowledgment. I can see why they wanted to use your arguments.

Satori
:)

EscaFlowne
09-04-04, 14:09
Wow Cloning....This could be drawn out but...
:note:
I believe in all its a good ideal with those nasty little side-effects. Like Good for medical use, but then after taking that kideny or that eye from your clone...what!? That clone is now not beautiful or what do they just kill that clone and use its body for parts!?!?! I mean after cloning that clone becomes a person. There probally be a war between Real people and so called clones about wheter they should be allowed to be used like that.

whew...

Then theres the overpopulation thing. Even though it could bring back the greatest joy to someone who lost a young child in an accident or something along the lines...you have to think about space. How many people are going to do that. Is it morally right!?!? What if the same thing happens again. That means there's two times as much as the first death. And this planet has been labeled as being too small for our population anyway in the near future thats why were seeking out side words, moon, spacestation, to house some of the human race....

whew whew......

Now the endangered species is a beautiful ideal! I love seeing animals flourish where they once were drowning. But the thing about brining back the mammoth is a little farfetched. It would be great to see one, but like twisted said the food chain. Then your going to have one scientist thinkin about dinosaurs!?!? And we don't need jurassic park on our hands. It would throw the whole Food Chain out of whack......but then again overpopulation wouldn't be a problem anymore because a good portion of us would get eaten keeping us at a good enough ratio between the top of the food chain and the next in line.....

whew whew whew.....

This is too much but last i think i shall speak on god...
Actually no.Some think its wrong and some think its right but wasn't eve created from a rib from adam.. :?
Just something to think about. :note:

Ulubatli
12-04-04, 11:50
Concerns about cloning is not about the misuse of it, for example building an army of 100 Arnolds... :)

When we had a discussion about cloning with my friends, concerns were mostly focused on what should it be used for?

As the admin stated before, noone will be using this to create new Hitler.

However, it is going to be used for medical purposes, such that for someone having an kidney inadequacy. It is really hard to find the right kidney for you. The tissues should match and the probability of finding the correct match is very low. Cloning is going to be used in these kind of situations. But how? You will be cloned and the kidney of the cloned one will be used... But what about the rest of the cloned one? Should it be used for spare part? :(

We couldn't come up with a proper conclusion on this topic...

I recently learned that specific organs are being produced using stem cells without building the whole body. This seems a quite nice method for medical purposes. However, the question about spare part body rests unanswered.


On the other hand, cloning is favourable because it is a hope for sterile people...

(addition: after i have read the whole discussion, i realized that other friends had already stated the concerns on spare body...)

m477
12-04-04, 15:05
I'm all for it. The potential for the advancement of medicine is huge. Sure, it could also be misused, but I don't think it would be more dangerous to humanity than, say, nuclear weapons.

Areku
17-06-04, 12:14
Personally, I don't see any problem with cloning.

As in my opinion humans are no more than more intelligent animals, human and animal or plant cloning should not be seen differently. There has been sheep or other animals cloned years ago, but the population has accepted it. What's the difference with humans. I hear people saying its dangerous. Why ? Why human clones are more dangerous than animal's ?


Totally agree, Maciamo. Cloning will only lead to more and more medical advancements in various fields. For instance, you could pay to have a clone made of you, and it's organs harvested.

Ethics people will complain (do they ever not?) but I think it hypocritical of anyone to complain about it, when at the same time they eat meat from animals which have been bred to be harvested and die. I don't see why humans have any more 'rights' than animals.

I don't believe cells have 'dignity' or a soul. We're all just organisms. We just happen to be a lot cleverer than any other on the planet and able to exploit our own bodies because of our knowledge of science.

bossel
18-06-04, 04:09
For instance, you could pay to have a clone made of you, and it's organs harvested.
A complete clone of you would be a complete human being, hence would have all human rights. Harvesting impossible!
A completely different thing would be cloning of single organs, though.

Lina Inverse
19-06-04, 04:25
I don't see any problems on cloning. I think it's just the next logical step to take when advancing in this field. There could be a lot of good things coming from it.
Of course there is the risk of abuse, but pretty much everything could be abused if you really want it :relief:

Areku
20-06-04, 03:04
A complete clone of you would be a complete human being, hence would have all human rights. Harvesting impossible!
A completely different thing would be cloning of single organs, though.

Well...red tape would make sure of that, yeah. It's definitely over the line between what people would accept and what they wouldn't.

Imagine though, that thanks to an accelerated growth process, you could have a tissue sample grown into an adult clone within weeks/months. Obviously the 'organism' would have next to no intelligence...would you let it be harvested to save you life/improve your health?

In the realms of sci fi there at the moment, heh, but space travel was sci fi not so long ago..

Buddha Smoker
20-06-04, 03:10
I can see the good and bad aspects of cloning. I would hope that it would be used for medical purposes but I'm sure it will work its way into a military advantage etc...

Foxtrot Uniform
20-06-04, 20:41
Wow, there are some real thinkers in this forum, and sadly some real "un-thinkers." I know some of you are joking or speaking hypothetically when discussing the sci-fi stuff, but I'm surprised at the level of ignorance found in some people. Quite incredible...

bossel
21-06-04, 00:08
Well...red tape would make sure of that, yeah. It's definitely over the line between what people would accept and what they wouldn't.

Imagine though, that thanks to an accelerated growth process, you could have a tissue sample grown into an adult clone within weeks/months. Obviously the 'organism' would have next to no intelligence...would you let it be harvested to save you life/improve your health?

In the realms of sci fi there at the moment, heh, but space travel was sci fi not so long ago..
Hmm, as long as the clone has a brain & a nervous system I would still call it a human being. Maybe if it is possible to grow a clone without, but I don't see the use in it. It's easier & cheaper to grow single organs, not to mention that there will be much fewer ethical discussions.

What's more, it will probably be possible to grow human organs industrially, instead of cloning them individually. It's only a matter of time.

Areku
21-06-04, 16:06
I hope so. But what about when everyone is 120, with a fully working body but no intelligence?

They'd have to find a way to synthesise a chemical which stops the braincells dying...in which case immortality may well be a possibility.

Honestly, I think within time, they'll be able to heal anything. Body split in half, bullet wounds, whatever. As long as the body is recovered in time of course.

Ewok85
21-06-04, 18:46
My opinion is:
Cloning people - interesting but people dont get it. You are just making a person, its nothing to do with them physically how they turn out, havn't you all seen that Eddy Murphy film? :D

Cloning - ok now were talking. Instead of thinking "i need a kidney! lets clone a person and take theirs! *evil maniacal laugh*" lets think 'lets clone a kidney!'. We should look more into making new organs and the sort. Stem cells have ALOT of potential. Someone mentioned living to 150. And? So? In many developed countries the birth rate is falling, its normal for this to happen in developed countries. What was the average age 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 500 years ago? eh? EH? EH?!?! tired...

GM Food - bring it on. Whats better? People in third world countries being able to grow insect/disease/weather resistant food in abundance or starving to death? Most the time its where you get a plant, lets say wheat and you mix in somthing else to improve its weaknesses. Farmer have been doing this forever with plants, crossbreeding animals and plants to make them better, only now we can do it in a lab and get results quicker. Think about it.

"Concerns about cloning is not about the misuse of it, for example building an army of 100 Arnolds... "
You want an army of 100 arnolds? Find 100 dedicated body builders. He's that way from years of focused work at getting his body that way.

Areku
22-06-04, 00:11
The problem with living to 150 is that the most likely scenario is a very regressed human brain inside the healthy body of a 30 year old, unable to work and suffering from things like strokes all the time because of the inability to replace the cerebral arteries or brain itself. Which would mean a big drain on money, big drain on housing....thus huge taxes and property prices.

Foxtrot Uniform
22-06-04, 20:21
You know whats funny? Out of 277 adults, Dolly was the only surviving adult, so if we can't properly and safely clone sheep yet, I don't think we should be worrying about the ethical issues created when cloning parts of human organs for harvesting or even cloning entire humans. Most of you out there don't really get cloning and its not like the stuff in the movies. Genetic issues come up, or the cells are aged, or organs that are cloned are oversized, or the fetus is still born, and the list if compications goes on.
It'll be decades before scientists can actually properly and safely clone a human being, if the U.S. doesn't ban cloning and force other nations to do so too once the conservatives completly take over...
But don't get me wrong, I am totally for cloning and I believe that it can benefit the human race in many ways.

Areku
22-06-04, 21:55
Most of you out there don't really get cloning and its not like the stuff in the movies. Genetic issues come up, or the cells are aged, or organs that are cloned are oversized, or the fetus is still born, and the list if compications goes on.

I think most of us here do, but at the moment we're just speculating. Things advance all the time.

howabe
22-06-04, 22:57
It'll be decades before scientists can actually properly and safely clone a human being
We're on the way though. Scientists in South Korea have successfully created cloned blastocysts, which are proven to have a decent chance of developing into a full human embryo. Due to the obvious ethical issues, they haven't actually tried to implant any in someone's womb yet though, so it's hard to ascertain exactly what stage in development we're at...

bossel
23-06-04, 02:24
It'll be decades before scientists can actually properly and safely clone a human being, if the U.S. doesn't ban cloning and force other nations to do so too once the conservatives completly take over...
Decades? Maybe, although I would set my bet on one decade at the most. But, be it one or more, there will be people who will try it before it is 100% safe.

It may be even harder to develop a way to clone single organs than a complete human being, since you have to find a way to switch on & off the right genes responsible in the DNA for development of these organs (I'm not sure, though, for I'm not too deep in this issue). But once developed it should be easier, safer & possible on a greater scale (& without the ethical issues of a full clone).

Buddha Smoker
23-06-04, 02:57
I think most of us here do, but at the moment we're just speculating. Things advance all the time.

I think everybody is speculating and I think that everybody is just putting out comments about what they would like to see or hope and hope not to see. Good comment.

King of Tokyo
16-07-04, 00:30
[Pardon me if this has already been said, I haven't read all previous posts] I Don't really like the idea.. it could get out of control.. maybe I'm just paranoid.. but.. they could start being able to implant personality traits into these clones.. and then clone the president.. and have an evil president.. and then some crazy thing that only happens in the movies could happen for real :D.. or they might make a crazy clone army lol.. Sorry.. just doesn't sound great to me.. what's next, robots ? What happens if they rebel like in "I, Robot" Ahh.. just doesn't sound like a good idea to me lol.. then again.. maybe I'm just paranoid.... lol

Mayura
16-07-04, 17:38
I dunno... I don't so like the idea of cloning... it's like if humans were trying to play God... >.<; nah... I don't like it...

And yeah... the over-population thing...
And anyway... isn't it like... mean? Even though it's just a clone, to just take its organs and stuff? I mean... well... >.<; urm... it's nearly like taking organs from any other human being? o.O though I don't think clones ARE like humans, but they kinda look like... and all... ~.~!

Foxtrot Uniform
16-07-04, 19:21
I'm definitly for cloning!! We could somehow get the DNA of all the dictators and tyrants and military leaders that ever lived and clone them again. We would put them (Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Napolean, Atila the Hun, Willaim the Conquerer, Ghengis Khan, etc) in a gigantic arena and watch them fight each other till the death, and see who is the greatest.

As for playing God, its too late! We already control the animals, create land, move mountains, control the destiny of other humans, and have the ability to destroy the Earth many times!!!

Mayura
17-07-04, 03:56
Well... I dunno, but there are limits, aren't there? -.-

Wang
17-07-04, 22:04
I don't think cloning humans is a good idea.
Because if men start massively cloning humans then people won't be as unique anymore as before. Also humans would then become more like objects that can easily be replaced by just creating more clones of anyone.

Companies could then perhaps buy clones to do jobs. Which would make the original natural humans obsolete in the labour force, because a almost endless amount of new cloned humans can be produced who look the same as you and can attain similar skills as you or anybody else that they clone.
And/or companies would then perhaps deny jobs to people with bad DNA, because why would they hire natural humans with bad DNA if they can get plenty of clones who are more prefect and more flawless then natural humans.

Some more negative implications would then also become possible like for example making a clone of a president and swap the real president with the clone president or anybody else powerful and important. Or maybe secretly produce clone armies. LOL :D :D
If the technology of massively cloning humans becomes possible and permitted then perhaps some of this stuff could happen.

Arch
19-07-04, 10:09
I don't think cloning humans is a good idea.
Because if men start massively cloning humans then people won't be as unique anymore as before. Also humans would then become more like objects that can easily be replaced by just creating more clones of anyone.

Companies could then perhaps buy clones to do jobs. Which would make the original natural humans obsolete in the labour force, because a almost endless amount of new cloned humans can be produced who look the same as you and can attain similar skills as you or anybody else that they clone.
And/or companies would then perhaps deny jobs to people with bad DNA, because why would they hire natural humans with bad DNA if they can get plenty of clones who are more prefect and more flawless then natural humans.

Some more negative implications would then also become possible like for example making a clone of a president and swap the real president with the clone president or anybody else powerful and important. Or maybe secretly produce clone armies. LOL :D :D
If the technology of massively cloning humans becomes possible and permitted then perhaps some of this stuff could happen.

Exactly agree !!!, yes it will help in the advancement of medicine but the negatives seem to way out the postives.
No matter how people say it will be only for medical purposes, it WILL end up in military. What happens if it ends up in a nation who wants to create its army further ???
As wang said if mass cloning happened, human's would be just products now, humans would be pretty much worthless.
This also brings up a few more questions, some-one said "we are humans, we are the same as animals" well maybe so, however do you think many relgions would agree ??? It would have alot of pressure from religious groups if this came through.
So human cloning, well i think it would be a bad idea, sorely because some one will always abuse it.

PaulTB
19-07-04, 17:16
Well it's been a good long time since the human cloning claim (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2610993.stm) but to the best of my knowledge it has not (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cloning/cloning.jsp?id=ns99993226) been confirmed.
Personally I think it is very, very likely that these claims are fraudulous, fake, fix-ups and other things begining with 'F'.

There's a whole lot of speculation on this thread, but not much (current) science. Right now the generally perceived state of the art is such that human clone embryos can be made and can be attempted to be brought to term. It is very likely that they will not reach full term if it is so tried. It is also still the case that if a cloned baby is born it will very likely suffer unpredictible and potentially fatal medical problems throughout its (quite likely short) life.

60Yen
19-08-04, 14:11
Hmmm, It could be a good thing. I'm not into cloning but if can be used for the benefits of the people....

Japanimaniac
14-10-04, 20:23
This is the one issue where I seem to contradict my views. Cloning stuff in order to heal or better a person (like the ear on the mouse's back) is fine, but I can't seem to make myself agree with cloning a person. I also dont believe in these new experiments where parents could pick what the appearence of their child would be. It just seems...wrong. And I'm not even sure why, because I have no factual evidence to prove that it is. Each person has a set time and presence on this planet, and I don't think it's right to mess with that.

Kinsao
31-08-05, 13:00
I am against cloning.

There have been great advances in treatment with the use of a person's own stem cells, which is really good because from themself it has no possibility of rejection. Stem cells could be taken from umbilical cord routinely at everyone's birth and used to help them in the case of they need treatments during their life.

Cloning 'complete' humans to full term is still in the realm of science fiction. There are many, many obstacles still to come. Some anti-cloning-ers do have a mental picture of armies of clones. I can't see that happening (at least, not for an extreeeemely long time).

However, the 'farming' of complete organs is also science fiction at the moment. It can't yet be done. The ear on the mouse's back was a different kind of case. An ear isn't an organ with all the complexities, it is cartilage/flesh that grows to a certain shape.

It does happen (I posted story on another thread ages ago) that brainstem death is induced in comatose patients so that their organs can be quickly removed while their body is still... fresh... :buuh: This happens in the UK at the moment - but beneath the rug of course. :okashii:

People have too good a view of humanity. If we get the ability to successfully clone to full-term, people (including those in positions of power and responsibility) will misuse that ability. :angryfire:

We may think at the moment that people will only use cloning for good purposes and for medical advances and healing and helping people. But that's not true. I can easily envision organ-harvesting from 'real-people' clones. You're not going to convince me all scientists are too moral and ethical not to do it.

Morfos
04-12-05, 09:21
I'm all for it. The potential for the advancement of medicine is huge. Sure, it could also be misused, but I don't think it would be more dangerous to humanity than, say, nuclear weapons.

Agree completely. Americans who oppose cloning are utter morons who take fanatical church leaders and poorly written sci-fi too seriously.

:okashii:

名無し
04-12-05, 22:15
Scientists in South Korea have successfully created cloned blastocysts, which are proven to have a decent chance of developing into a full human embryo.Hwang Cloning Scandal Invokes Nationalism (http://www.theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=2753)
Perhaps this goes some way to explain the extraordinary reaction of the Korean people to this news. Since the infamous press conference, there have been on and offline demonstrations, candle-lit vigils, boycotting of the media outlet involved in reporting Hwang's lies to the world and even comment on the reaction from the President.Conclusion: truth does not matter to them. What they care is, if it is stuff they want to hear or something they do not want to face.

Tsuyoiko
05-12-05, 12:40
I don't have a problem with it at all. I don't think we should view it any differently from any other medical treatment. All treatments are open to abuse anyway, and we just have to do what we can to ensure that they will be used ethically. Should we stop doing blood transfusions because we can't trust the doctors to screen for HIV? I think fear of possibly negative consequences is an unnecessary obstacle to progress.

An interesting application of cloning that I hadn't heard about until recently is as a treatment for male infertility. Instead of using anonymous sperm, it might be possible in the future to clone the mother. I know there are objections, but I think I would be happier to have no biological father than have to live with the knowledge that I can never know who my father was. Since kids look like their parents anyway, it probably wouldn't be obvious that the child is a clone. Of course, that's a personal view and many people will feel the opposite.

An argument against human clones that half swayed me for a while was that they wouldn't have a random shuffling of genes like a 'natural' person. But then how many of us do really? Twins certainly don't, and most of us 'choose' who to have children with, so it's not entirely random anyway.

名無し
16-12-05, 20:10
We're on the way though. Scientists in South Korea have successfully created cloned blastocysts, which are proven to have a decent chance of developing into a full human embryo.Indeed on the way.

Korean Stem Cell Data Faked, Paper's co-Author Says (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05349/622893.stm) (AP)

"Hwang Fabricated Stem Cell Research" (http://english.kbs.co.kr/news/newsview_sub.php?menu=6&key=2005121601) (KBS)

Stem Cells Don't Exist: Hwang Associate (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200512/200512160001.html) (Chosun Ilbo)

More (http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20051215/410100000020051215232340E2.html)
Chronology (http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200512/kt2005121523394811780.htm)
Excuse (http://english.kbs.co.kr/news/newsview_sub.php?key=2005121622)


Let's see what this veterinarian had said in the past:

Korea's Embryonic Stem Cell Research Surpasses That of Other Countries (http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2005061329918) (Jun. 13 2005)
In an interview with Korean reporters in the U.S., Hwang remarked, "seeing nuclear transportation work designed to extract embryonic stem cells in the laboratory of Seoul National University, a prominent foreign research team yielded to a Korean team," and compared the gap in research achievements between Korea and foreign countries to the difference between Pele's soccer and village soccer.U.K. Journal Profiles Korea's "Cloning King" (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200505/200505160014.html) (May 16, 2005)
Hwang's secret weapons was "a mastery of wielding steel chopsticks," quoting the scientist as saying, "This work can be done much better in Oriental hands... We can pick up very slippery corn or rice with the steel chopsticks."It seems that steel chopsticks helped someone to become Pel of lying.

http://www.koreapost.go.kr/images/post/2428.jpg

名無し
21-01-06, 04:29
Since the infamous press conference, there have been on and offline demonstrations, candle-lit vigils, boycotting of the media outlet involved in reporting Hwang's lies to the world and even comment on the reaction from the President.Man Drinks Poison after Demanding Respect for Disgraced Scientist (http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20060119/410200000020060119190830E8.html)
The 30-year-old jobless man made the suicide attempt while talking with employees of the Daegu MBC TV network, police said.Still accusing MBC for whatever reasons, nice traditional public performing art "attempt" indeed.

名無し
04-02-06, 05:43
Hwang Supporter Burns Himself to Death (http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20060204/410100000020060204114314E6.html)
A South Korean man committed suicide on Saturday by setting himself on fire in downtown Seoul in an apparent protest against a prosecution investigation into disgraced cloning researcher Hwang Woo-suk, police said.Things are on the right track.

名無し
21-03-06, 06:26
Disgraced Stem Cell Researcher Hwang Dismissed from University (http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20060320/410100000020060320204922E0.html)
Embattled South Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk was dismissed from his university on Monday.

lonesoullost3
21-03-06, 08:27
We're on the way though. Scientists in South Korea have successfully created cloned blastocysts, ...

But those two papers (2004/5) were the ones repudiated recently as using fraudulent data. So it's still to be seen if it can truly been done (though Dr. Hwang is currently pleaing to try and prove that some of the cultures were successful).

nurizeko
22-03-06, 11:36
I have just seen that my comment has been selected (with plenty of others) and highlighted by the BBC on its Talking Point section. Always make you feel like you exist. ;)

You've just proved the anti-cloning point there.

To clone someone is to violate their existance, every human is unique, by taking their DNA you not only steal their existance from the donor, you cause alot of issue for the clone, how would the clone feel knowing they were created in a laboratory, having the genetic material harvested from someone else? how would they feel knowing they are just a copy?.

I understand your point of view Mac, your a very uber-liberal "progressive" minded individual, but, as you made my point for me, you like to feel you exist, despite your opinion humans are intelligent animals (true as it is) as a sentient being you still value your identity, how would you cope if there were 10-30 or even hundreds of copies of Mac walking about belgium?.

Im not a religious nut so this isnt based on the its playing god argument, its based on the basic rules of humanity and core ethics (which different from christian propaganga, isnt based on christian dogma, its based on the fact some things are just wrong. period).

Scientific progress just has to accept the confines and limits of universal ethics, if it doesnt humanity would soon enough degenerate into something not worthy of being called human, and i would happily see it whiped off of the face of the universe.

I dont mnid cloning research entirely, but fully grown clones must never be allowed to become common-place, or even not so common-place, otherwise we start ourselves on a slippery slope which can only lead to darker things.

Rich303
22-03-06, 13:05
I know it's 'only a movie' but I think 'Bladerunner' raises questions about artificially created people, although the Replicants in Bladerunner are not clones (they are 'built' by genetic designers)
They give the Replicants fake 'memories' to pacify their curiosity about where they came from.
A creature with a mind as sophisticated and emotional as a human is going to have a lot of questions and problems with it's existance.

Think of the issues created by adoption, people become curious about their origins - imagine finding out you had no mother or father at all.
I'm no Luddite, but I think the pro-cloning brigade need to think long and hard about the human difficulties that clones might encounter.
There's enough troubled people in this world as it is.

Tsuyoiko
27-03-06, 12:03
how would they feel knowing they are just a copy?.
Ask an identical twin.

Kinsao
27-03-06, 12:42
I wouldn't know from experience, but I imagine identical twins sometimes have what you might call 'identity issues'... I don't suppose it's all roses. :clueless:

Mikawa Ossan
28-03-06, 14:11
The identical twin issue brings up a good point, in my opinion. That is, even if I were to have a clone made of myself, that new person still would not be me. Ignoring whether the "self" is only an illusion or not, that clone would have an identity of his own, distinct from mine. He would have different experiences to define his character, and therefore he would be different.

It seems to me that a number of people in society seem to overlook this fact.

Reiku
28-03-06, 15:05
It's a good point though, I know I could have turned out completely differently if certain things had been different in my life.

This all puts me in mind of an old science fiction story about a colony on the moon where people downloaded their memories to these "data cubes" and if you got killed they just cloned a new body and put the memories back in.

The main character kept getting murdered, and couldn't figure out who was doing it since their memory cube data was only as recent as their last trip to the doctor's.

Good story--great suprise ending too--but I digress.

For me, the issue is really one of escalation. If we have this technology, people are going to misuse it, it's just that simple--everything we have get's misused sooner or later. So the real question is whether we want something as major as human clonning to get thrown into the mix. I mean, you misuse a can opener, no big deal--at worst you might be able to kill somebody with one if you really tried. But misuse human cloning?

Man, the possibilities are staggering.

Do we really want to have to deal with the kind of problems that could cause? I mean, we've already got nukes and spacecraft and supercolliders to misuse, isn't that enough?

On the other hand, can you really stop it?

All it takes is one genious or a lot of idiots with generous funding.

Rich303
28-03-06, 15:59
Wow, there are some real thinkers in this forum, and sadly some real "un-thinkers." I know some of you are joking or speaking hypothetically when discussing the sci-fi stuff, but I'm surprised at the level of ignorance found in some people. Quite incredible...


Fair point, but none of us are experts. This thread is about speculation.
Also, there are some sci-fi authors who are practicing scientists, or at least conduct a lot of scientific research, so sci-fi is not always nonsense. A lot of it is informed speculation.

Japanimaniac
23-04-06, 07:07
The identical twin issue brings up a good point, in my opinion. That is, even if I were to have a clone made of myself, that new person still would not be me. Ignoring whether the "self" is only an illusion or not, that clone would have an identity of his own, distinct from mine. He would have different experiences to define his character, and therefore he would be different.
It seems to me that a number of people in society seem to overlook this fact.

Exactly. Just look at the movie Multiplicity. While the movie itself is almost completely absurd, they make this exact point.

Even if a clone retains all past memories of the original up to the point of cloning, that clone is going to have it's own experiences from that point on, and therefore end up different.

moffeltoff
23-04-06, 11:45
Personally I don稚 really care if there is another "me" anywhere on this planet I壇 rather have to share my "genetical Id" with someone else if the possibility of replacing malfunctioning parts of your body in case you are in need of them. The possibilities on the medical sector would be huge just imagine having your own personal stash of parts your body to replace them if you need to.

Maciamo
18-08-07, 11:38
For those who are against cloning, reflect about this : a Canadian woman gave birth to rare identical quadruplets (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6951330.stm).

I didn't know that there were natural identical triplets or quadruplets. If the four survive, their life will be just like the same person cloned 3 times. Identical siblings share exactly the same DNA, so that when one of them has a child, it could be the one of any of them. A great way not too worry too much about not having children, as long as your identical twin does, as it will be yours too (genetically). Yet identical twins, triplets or quadruplets are natural. Those against cloning are against one of the wonders of Nature (and against the work of God, if they believe in God).

Some primitive civilisations thought of identical twins are evil, so that always killed one of them after birth. Others, like the Romans, found it was a gift of the gods. Make your choice where you stand.