Nice.
Cloning
-
Oh, and to let you know, I’m for cloning humans too.
We got too many of them as it is. :x
:lol:
-
see, mike and i were talking about this once. and we came to an agreement, that generally (not always) the same people against cloning are against hunting and such. so we figure, why not hunt cloned animals? I mean, obviously some hunting of natural animals would still be necessary to keep numbers in check, but since so many eco-freaks are against it, and also are against cloning saying such things as “its unnatural”, why not hunt them? by the enviromentalists logic, its not killing a real animal, because they are clones. what are everyones thoughts?
-
- F_alk et al. - you guys are guilty of the slippery slope fallacy. Developing the ability and will to clone animals will not necessarily lead to human cloning (it may make it easier). This alone is not reason enough to cease research in this area, but rather to make us more cautious and impress limits on research as far as human cloning goes (within ethical limits).
- There is a problem of not only genetic diseases, however viral diseases that impregnate themselves into the DNA of animals that they live in relationship with. This may not be so much a problem now, however we need to be exceedingly careful once we discuss xenotransplantation as these DNA viruses may just become virulent in a human host.
- Once the “bugs” are worked out, i think that cloning animals can be a wonderful boon to humankind. Both for food, and for organ use. From a basic sciences standpoint, we may learn more about human physiology and biochemistry from research in this area as well.
flame away.
-
- Once the “bugs” are worked out, i think that cloning animals can be a wonderful boon to humankind. Both for food, and for organ use. From a basic sciences standpoint, we may learn more about human physiology and biochemistry from research in this area as well.
flame away.
Couldn’t agree with this statement more.
- Once the “bugs” are worked out, i think that cloning animals can be a wonderful boon to humankind. Both for food, and for organ use. From a basic sciences standpoint, we may learn more about human physiology and biochemistry from research in this area as well.
-
@cystic:
- F_alk et al. - you guys are guilty of the slippery slope fallacy. Developing the ability and will to clone animals will not necessarily lead to human cloning (it may make it easier). This alone is not reason enough to cease research in this area, but rather to make us more cautious and impress limits on research as far as human cloning goes (within ethical limits).
It will not necessarilz lead to clonign humans, true. Just as (see the GUn Control thread) owning guns does not mean you will use them. But, i can assure you: Give a human any tool, and he will use it with a probability very close up 100%.
I agree on the being cautious and impress limits, but these should be made beforehand. Mankind can surely live another few years without cloning, while it makes up its mind and thinks about what can happen, which risks we are willing to take.And the dangers we might face (including “gene hopping”) are much serious than those we faced from the other 2 classical sciences.
(Look at histroz: We had the “chemical” age, which lead to the first use of WMDs in the trenches of WWI. Then came the “physical” age, with the nuclear bomb ending WWII. I am sure we don’t need a war to see what the “biological” can give us, and that is what scares me most) -
I doubt we’ll be seeing a “clone army” in the future, F_alk. I think you’ve been watching way too much Star Wars, freundchen. :wink:
-
“I doubt we’ll be seeing…”
Yikes! How many times have we heard this throughout history…? :o
-
And how many times have I heard of a future with flying cars and space colonies? ;)
-
hey give us 100 more years TG i am sure you will see Space colonies and flying cars ;)
-
hey give us 100 more years TG i am sure you will see Space colonies and flying cars ;)
I certainly hope I’m around in 100 years. And I’d rather see spacecars and flying colonies. :D
-
Yes, with one condition.
You pass a law saying any clone is no different from a human being in terms of civil rights, ect.
Using Stem Cells to grow body parts could potentially saved millions of lives. I don’t see why our Government doesn’t promote it more.
-
Yes, with one condition.
You pass a law saying any clone is no different from a human being in terms of civil rights, ect.
Using Stem Cells to grow body parts could potentially saved millions of lives. I don’t see why our Government doesn’t promote it more.
I don’t know. It seems to me you would not want clones to have the same rights as people. Because what if someone who had a bad heart, for example, had a clone made to ensure that he would have a replacement heart? I’m sorry, I can’t explain why I think clones shouldn’t have rights, it just doesn’t seem right for some reason.
And yes, I agree about the stem-cell research.
-
A clone is a person. He will simply have the same DNA (slightly varied actually) as another person, like a twin. He’s even have different finger prints.
-
@TG:
I doubt we’ll be seeing a “clone army” in the future, F_alk. I think you’ve been watching way too much Star Wars, freundchen. :wink:
The clone army was not what i feared. But messing with living material… well, the good thing about chemical and nuclear weapons is that they are active only once. Biological entities have the tendency to multiply, to survive at all costs… so creating something there and setting it free can have effects that we can not foresee at all, and that is the danger.
But that is going OT, that"s why i put it in brackets the first place.
-
Yes, but physics is not just limited to nuclear energy nor chemestry to chemical agents, but I see the point that you’re getting at least. ;) At least for now, there are vaccines for some biological agents - for nuclear warefare, there are none.
-
A clone is a person. He will simply have the same DNA (slightly varied actually) as another person, like a twin. He’s even have different finger prints.
They could even better then the average person, if we get skilled enough at Cloning we could take out the Bad genes in people like Cancer if that is feasable off course. And it could help us understand aging a bit and make wonders for medical technology. and if you are that Open minded, you could think of Cloning as our next stage of Evolution. because as far as i am concerned anything Man made is Natural, because after all Man is naturally made.
-
A clone is a person. He will simply have the same DNA (slightly varied actually) as another person, like a twin. He’s even have different finger prints.
They could even better then the average person, if we get skilled enough at Cloning we could take out the Bad genes in people like Cancer if that is feasable off course. And it could help us understand aging a bit and make wonders for medical technology. and if you are that Open minded, you could think of Cloning as our next stage of Evolution. because as far as i am concerned anything Man made is Natural, because after all Man is naturally made.
signs of Gattaca.
And i think that man threw out the whole idea of “natural evolution” once social-type programs were invented. With the current social nets in place people who should not be living to reproduce are doing so increasingly. Cloning - No animal can genetically engineer out genetic “blebs” - not with the same velocity that you are proposing. Maybe this is our answer to the social engineering question where the least deserving seem to reproduce increasingly. (by “least deserving” i am referring to the kind of people who should have died by accidently baking themselves in an oven, or by jumping up and down in a knife field)
-
candidates for the darwin awards.
-
CC, i am surprised.
Even though (Depending on my mood) i sometimes saz something similar elitist…. i can not understand at all how christianity and talking of “people that would better be dead” can go hand in hand. I am confused. -
@F_alk:
CC, i am surprised.
Even though (Depending on my mood) i sometimes saz something similar elitist…. i can not understand at all how christianity and talking of “people that would better be dead” can go hand in hand. I am confused.wow
where did i mention “people that would better be dead”?
This is not a simple misquote, this is a completely different meaning.
I am suggesting that there are people who would have died a billion times of a billion conditions that havn’t because of our social engineering.
Would these people be better off dead? I would never say this thing. Even about prisoners on death row. If i was the kind of person to say this, then why would i be against capital punishment.
I’ll write his up to a difference in language.
Suggested Topics
