[OT] Claim of first clone birth
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Larry Fitz
First Post
It is not a good idea to limit genetic diversity. When you do that, you open a species up to the real possibilty of a disease or genetic aberration eliminating large numbers of members of that species. There can be no more limiting a factor to genetic diversity than cloning. The idea of creating a clone to achieve immortality, well... that's hte ultimate narcissism. BVut seriously how would that be achieved? A Brain transplant? I won't even begin to tell you the problems that would entail. Suffice to say that the healing factors which allow transplant of so many other vital organs do not apply to most neurological cells. Its not impossible (if stem cell research is allowed, that may even holdhte answers), but it's not happening in the next decade either. What about "Brain taping", essentially downloading the contents of one brain into another. Well the question then is... is that you? Assume th "taping process could be done without destroying the original copy (ie your brain). Then a clone is uploaded all that data. That clone is not you, you are you. Aren't you?
seasong
First Post
Just a few notes on cloning and the alien descendants.
1) Cloning is not viable for humans yet.
2) By viable, I don't mean "impossible". I mean, even with far simpler animals, we get freaks, and we don't know they're freaks until they're pretty well developed baby animals.
3) By freaks, I mean "non-viable life that can't sustain itself and dies in nasty ways".
4) Humans have a more complicated early cell life. It's more difficult to clone a human than a sheep.
5) By difficult, I mean that there were some 50 non-viable baby sheep before we got a sheep that developed premature arthritis and obesity. This from a healthy cell donor.
6) To repeat, cloning is not viable for humans yet.
Yes, someone might get lucky and get a viable clone on their first try. That's just playing the odds. But I don't think our modern alienists are that lucky, or smart.
Oh, and one other thing. This is CNN. CNN also reported on the Italian doctor. His name is Severino Antinori. Here's the final word on that publicity stunt (hint: he denies it). CNN still hasn't printed a correction about this, a year after their last glowing report of his supposed success. I trust CNN's reporting in this matter and all others regarding cloning approximately as far as I can throw the entire mass of that august agency.
1) Cloning is not viable for humans yet.
2) By viable, I don't mean "impossible". I mean, even with far simpler animals, we get freaks, and we don't know they're freaks until they're pretty well developed baby animals.
3) By freaks, I mean "non-viable life that can't sustain itself and dies in nasty ways".
4) Humans have a more complicated early cell life. It's more difficult to clone a human than a sheep.
5) By difficult, I mean that there were some 50 non-viable baby sheep before we got a sheep that developed premature arthritis and obesity. This from a healthy cell donor.
6) To repeat, cloning is not viable for humans yet.
Yes, someone might get lucky and get a viable clone on their first try. That's just playing the odds. But I don't think our modern alienists are that lucky, or smart.
Oh, and one other thing. This is CNN. CNN also reported on the Italian doctor. His name is Severino Antinori. Here's the final word on that publicity stunt (hint: he denies it). CNN still hasn't printed a correction about this, a year after their last glowing report of his supposed success. I trust CNN's reporting in this matter and all others regarding cloning approximately as far as I can throw the entire mass of that august agency.
Larry Fitz said:
This is true, but I don't see cloning as a meaningful threat to human genetic diversity. For that to happen, the bulk of the population has to be replaced by clones drawn from a relatively small subset of the population, and I don't see any reasonable circumstance under which that would occur. Since you can't create a clone any faster than you can create any other baby, there's not even the 'repopulating after a disaster' scenario.
"Rich people would clone themselves a million times!"
Except, of course, that the upper classes (in Europe and America) have FEWER kids overall, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is splitting up the family fortune into too many pieces. How could, say, Bill Gates raise 1000 little Gateses? Raising even three or four children is a challenge.
If clones are a threat to genetic diversity, then, so are twins (and triplets, quadruplets, qunituplets, etc), and, in the interests of preserving genetic diversity, all but one of a group of genetically-identical fetuses should be aborted. The ludicrousness of this proposal should be obvious. (Also, fertility drugs which increase the liklihood of genetically identical children should be banned.)
(Besides which, to humans, MEMETIC diversity is far more important...)
Zappo
Explorer
I still think that it's a publicity stunt.
With the premise that for immortality I'm willing to ignore a huge portion of ethics and a chunk of morals too...
First of all, you can't become immortal this way, simply because something eventualy will go wrong. Brain disease, and you're dead - and with age, you will get one eventually. Or you could die in an accident. I'm fairly sure that if someone did some statistical work, he'd find out that even if (big if) this madness worked, it would "only" mean two, maybe three hundred years (if you are a careful driver and someone finds a cure for Alzheimer). Not bad, but it's still nothing compared to how much I'd like to live.
So, if I had a huge amount of money to invest in an immortality project, I'd stop wasting my time with clones and start with brain/machine interfaces. Followed by artificial bodies. I'm pretty sure this could be done with enough research, time and money. They'd eventually be as good as biological ones (or better). When that works good enough, try to find a way to dump a mind into a computer. I'm not sure that can reasonably be done, but hey I would have said the same about going to the Moon if I lived in the last century. If that works, woo-hoo, just make backups and barring unimaginable catastrophes I could theorically watch the Sun explode eventually (from a safe distance, mind ya). And no ethical problems involved.
With the premise that for immortality I'm willing to ignore a huge portion of ethics and a chunk of morals too...
First of all, you can't become immortal this way, simply because something eventualy will go wrong. Brain disease, and you're dead - and with age, you will get one eventually. Or you could die in an accident. I'm fairly sure that if someone did some statistical work, he'd find out that even if (big if) this madness worked, it would "only" mean two, maybe three hundred years (if you are a careful driver and someone finds a cure for Alzheimer). Not bad, but it's still nothing compared to how much I'd like to live.
So, if I had a huge amount of money to invest in an immortality project, I'd stop wasting my time with clones and start with brain/machine interfaces. Followed by artificial bodies. I'm pretty sure this could be done with enough research, time and money. They'd eventually be as good as biological ones (or better). When that works good enough, try to find a way to dump a mind into a computer. I'm not sure that can reasonably be done, but hey I would have said the same about going to the Moon if I lived in the last century. If that works, woo-hoo, just make backups and barring unimaginable catastrophes I could theorically watch the Sun explode eventually (from a safe distance, mind ya). And no ethical problems involved.
Kilmore
First Post
One thing that worries me is that if cloning is in the hands of a fringe of society, they might decide that we no longer have need for a naughty little thing called SEX and take action appropriately. Imagine living in a society where you NEVER got to see even a picture of a member of the opposite gender. There are people in the world who are nutty enough to think this is good!
Henry
Autoexreginated
It may not be possible yet, it may be - but we are inching in on that day slowly but surely. When it gets here, we have to ask ourselves this: will we be ready with the necessary checks in place to prevent any catastrophic results?
A change in fundamental human paradigms is evident; you can't have something as momentous as stable human cloning appear and not expect massive societal changes. However, I am not as worried about societal shifts as I am health implications. I have always been a proponent of cloning as a means towards ready transplant organs and limbs, and the better handling of genetic illnesses.
But you have to think about it: The Geneva Conventions did not come about until AFTER World War I. U.S. Federal regulations affecting the Stock Markets did not come about until AFTER 1929. Mankind always has to learn the one horrendous lesson, before checks and balances are put into place.
A change in fundamental human paradigms is evident; you can't have something as momentous as stable human cloning appear and not expect massive societal changes. However, I am not as worried about societal shifts as I am health implications. I have always been a proponent of cloning as a means towards ready transplant organs and limbs, and the better handling of genetic illnesses.
But you have to think about it: The Geneva Conventions did not come about until AFTER World War I. U.S. Federal regulations affecting the Stock Markets did not come about until AFTER 1929. Mankind always has to learn the one horrendous lesson, before checks and balances are put into place.
Similar Threads
