O, Brave new world ...?

[Tiassa]

Tuesday, January 25, 2000, 07:07 a.m. Pacific

Britain OKs patent on cloned human cells


by Justin Gillis
The Washington Post

A patent newly issued by the British government appears to cover cloned human cells at the earliest stages of development, when they would in theory be capable of developing into a human being.

__________________________________________________ ____
http://www.seattletimes.com/news/nation-world/html98/clon_20000125.html

* * * * *

So here we go ... are we at the dawn of a new era, or just another day?

thanx,
Tiassa :confused:

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[Lori]

Seems that our very own Tower of Babel is almost complete? He'll be coming soon. Get yourself ready.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited January 26, 2000).]

[Tiassa]

And He will be a clone of John Cleese.

So, uh ... are the ethical implications of any interest here, or should we just resign ourselves to not having to worry about it by next week or so?

Of course, on a related note, John Bloom of the Daily Show (Comedy Central) did his "God Stuff" bit last night. Sure, it's meant to make religion look bad, but only if it's religion on TV. And he got a clip of John Hinckley ... wait, John Hinckle ... describing his prophetic dream. Apparently Jesus told him that He is coming, and that He will "rip the evil out of the world" on June 9. Damn, I didn't want to die in white shoes.

--Tiassa :cool:


------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[Christian]

Another era for humans. Another day for God who holds the true patent for human life.

[tablariddim]

Like all great discoveries and technologies, the potential is there for the greater good.
But there is also the potential for the greater evil. Ultimately it would depend on how far the cloners are officially allowed to go and the level of government control there is within the cloning facility.
Ofcourse, once a technology is available you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be exploited to the max and possibly abused.

The thing is, that after a couple of generations have gotten used to the idea of cloned organs, bones, limbs, skin, blood etc the next logical step will be to build hybrid machine/humans - non thinking androids with computers for brains and self healing bodies who will initially be touted for space exploration and tough manual labour but who will eventually be corrupted and used for oppression, here comes the terminator.

Lori,
unless we've been annihilated by the angels of light by then.
http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

[MoonCat]

Hm, that's an interesting angle, the human/machine hybrid. I never thought of that possiblity though. I dunno about the oppresion theory though - why would a human/machine hybrid be any better a tool for oppression than the current government?! :) Mankind has many tools that could be used either way - constructive or destructive. I don't think we should throw away new technologies just because it could conceivably cause harm - what would be our fate if our predecessors had thrown out fire because it could kill? Or computers because you could theoretically hypnotize millions of people and turn them into zombies?

I see nothing wrong with cloning. If you clone an entire human being, even, what's the big deal? We fertilize eggs in test tubes anyway, is the big problem just because the genes are the same? The clone would still be human, would it not?

Of course, now I am hearing that the cells die just as if they are the same age as the original donor. That would need to be taken into consideration, it definitely would not be ethical to create an infant that has a 50 year old's age tacked on in advance. But I can see possiblities for perhaps mothers that have an in-uterus problem with a baby - for example the unborn baby gets choked to death by the umbilical chord. Would it be so terrible to clone that unlucky baby and give that family a shot at having their infant back? Sure, most people could just concieve a new baby, but what if it's some poor woman that this was her only shot??

I think the real, most likely possibilities are for organs and such. When I'm a 60 year old lady, I sure as heck hope they're able to clone a new heart or something for me if I need it!! I'm sure I will need a new heart in my old age, the way this message board gives me heart attacks! (Just kidding!!!) I'd much rather recieve a heart duplicated with my own genetic material than some other unfortunate cadaver's leftovers, even if it is 60 years old, cell-wise. Less complications in the surgery, no harsh 'anti-rejection' medication to take the rest of my life, more likely to succeed overall. More availability, too! You don't have to wait for someone else to die before you get your chance to survive. I always found that morbid. Necessary, but morbid.

[Tiassa]

MoonCat--

Your 1/27 post raised some compelling ideas. If I toss a couple of comments toward those ideas, I would hope to not be seen as simply throwing counterpoints.

* I think we might be able, in the forseeably near future, eliminate the issues related to the age of the source person. I read an AP wire a few months back declaring that scientists somewhere had managed to manufacture--or, at least, reproduce--stem cells, which, when we learn how to manipulate them, can apparently be incited to grow into whatever kind of cell we want it to (assuming our desired result is natural to the source organism--I'm not sure we can make a rat's tail out of a human blood sample, as such. But I think we'll find a way to "program" the cells around the age problem when we are able to fully exploit both cloning and stem cell techniques.

* Also, as regards age ... it might not make a difference in minor applications; certainly it seems a person could receive multiple treatments using cloned cells, so that it will eventually be like taking an asprin or getting a shot; one time won't work for a lifetime, but the accessibility of the techniques can probably manage age-related dysfunctions in cloned cells, so long as it's a small thing. But if we're cloning a whole body on that technique, or even a lung or heart or pancreas ... I don't know, it might be harder than necessary on the human body to continually replace large portions of a major, cloned organ.

* As regards mothers ... I have no definite answer for myself on that, but a couple of initial impressions: I feel we would have to rewrite some very general social standards were we, as a society, to start replacing infants lost to tragedy .... Well, there's the idea of: stillbirth--what then of SIDS? I had a high-school teacher who tried to carry a child to term despite its lack of a heartbeat. She knew that she was carrying dead tissue for months, but her faith instructed her to carry this mass of lifeless tissue until she could not any longer. This nearly killed her. But, at the time, if cloning of infants had been available .... What I'm getting at with that is that there might be a line that, if we cross it, has the potential to eliminate certain things that make "family" a positive social idea, and will change drastically our regard for the value of life.

* Also ... I just saw this goofy episode of the new Outer Limits in which Alan Thicke played a Geraldo-esque journalist and "Byers" from the X-Files was a secret source. Plot-line: the government is creating clones of people in order to replace "rabble" with upstanding, conforming doppelgangers. Government conspiracies aside ... how would we prosecute, say, the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, where DNA was the primary link between the suspect and the dead?

But the technology isn't necessarily bad. Frankly, I like the idea of your own brand-new un-soused liver, at a reduced cost because you provided the source material, or an un-tarred lung, or a cloned heart with small genetic modifications to correct that congenital murmur.

Oh, as regards birth ... I do have one idea that might become critical from the bioethical standpoint:

* Even 10 years ago we argued about genetically modifying fetuses in order to correct congenital heart problems and so forth. But it led to a debate about "vanity" modifications: I want a boy, not a girl; I want my little boy to have blue eyes; I don't want my little boy to have his father's nose ... &c. The way I see it, if we can build the whole human being and regulate that many variables, tweaking eye color or gender should be no problem. Will children, then, become living style statements on their parents behalf?

And many other odd, strange considerations like these. Some of this wouldn't have occurred to me for a long time, so thank you most kindly for the comments. :) But the well's running dry for the moment, so I'll take a while to think about it all because, well, it's here, and I couldn't make it go away even if I decided it should.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[tablariddim]

Originally posted by MoonCat:
- why would a human/machine hybrid be any better a tool for oppression than the current government?! .

Hi MC,
what I meant was that these machines could be used by governments/dictators as the tools of oppression, rather like Arnies character in Terminator one.

I don't think it would be ethical to clone or create whole human beings, (a) because you'd be creating them without their permission and (b), well I think (a) is enough of a reason actually.

Hybrids on the other hand, could be great. You could have your very own maid/ butler/ sex object/ platonic company/ dog walker. Imagine the benefits to somebody who is crippled in some way and housebound or to the elderly.
But they would only be domestic versions and about as malignant as your fridge. The security forces on the other hand will want to have something a bit more special. It's like, you're happy with your MG but they're happy with their Chieftain tank!
... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

[Lori]

You know, this discussion makes me want to vomit. Anything but getting married, having great sex lives, and conceiving and raising children right????????? "No God really, there's got to be a better way!" And you will wonder why this world comes caving in on your heads pretty soon. Don't say you weren't warned.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[Tiassa]

Lori--

I might mention that, in general, I share your sympathies regarding, "No, God, really! There's got to be a better way!"

But what about it makes you want to vomit?

Might I break your post into three parts?

1) "You know, this discussion makes me want to vomit." Again, I'm just curious (honest), but I will attempt to demonstrate the nature of my curiosity.

2) "Anything but getting married, having great sex lives, and conceiving and raising children right?" Considering my view of modern society, I probably have two tiny disagreements with you there, but you've got a point. However, much of this technology will affect marriage and reproduction. Might I pose a question for context:

--Many couples are unable to reproduce for various reasons; imagine that the solution to that was to genetically alter the chromosomal pattern on one of your ova? or else making artificial spermata from stem cells written with your impotent husband's DNA code? (The stem cell technology's probably ten years away.)

Just from the raising children aspect, you've offered an avenue to consider how this technology would affect marriage itself, since childrearing is supposed to be a two-party effort.

3) "'No God really, there's got to be a better way!' And you will wonder why this world comes caving in on your heads pretty soon. Don't say you weren't warned."

I generally see a hazardous time coming for the American family; perfection pressures will run wild for a period. The ability to customize one's child will create a new sense of expectation from the child; it will create a new aspect of frustration for some parents. What will be the impact of being able to plan your child like you're buying a Saturn sedan online?

I tend to think that most human trends point toward a frenzied abuse of genetic technology, at least in the United States, and maybe Japan. Unfortunately, the degree of spiritual collapse that American the society will undergo could potentially threaten it's very functionality. So let me say that some won't be surprised. We're already with you on this one. :cool:


So, given all of this, I would ask why the discussion seems so vile? I'm aware there's too broad a spectrum of possible reasons for me to offer you a multiple choice, but I would actually like to know. I mean, in those short lines you said quite a mouthful. It would actually make me sad to think that the times in which your faith most resembles ideas I recognize is ... well, I can't fill in the blank, for I know not what has disturbed you. But the condition I would stick in there as an assumption? How about "... ideas I recognize is ... when you're physically sickened"? Or even its figurative equivalent.

Anyway, if you've got a couple of minutes ...?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")