Thoughts on cloning????

Any thoughts on cloning and how far it should be taken. Do you think cloning is alot further along then we are led to believe? How far off do you see the cloning of humans? Is cloning right? and to what extent should it be done to?

Thanks!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

as you can see in this thread primate cloning is still far from being feasible, so I am not really worried.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Absolute and complete insanity. One wonders that some people have nothing better to do with their lives. Still, in the grand chain of cause and effect what we do probably has no net good or bad effect in the end, with the effects approaching a balance over time just as repeated coin tosses do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Over how long a period of time?

If we "nuke" the planet, how long before things balance out?

:bugeye:

 

No idea. If you throw ten heads in a row how long before things balance out? Presumably a state of 'balance' would be the ultimate limit, so I guess the end of time is the safe answer.

Equivalently the universe would achieve zero net energy at about the same time (in fact zero net everything).

We do not know 99.9...% of the consequences of any of our actions, since 99.9...% of them are unintended, assuming the world is deterministic. We can't know whether something will turn out right or wrong, we just know whether it's right or wrong now. IOWs the ends cannot ever justify the means unless you take a very short term view, since there is no end that we can know about.

 

So, in the global scheme of things, we live in a deterministic reality. However, in our small corner of it, for all intents and purposes, it's non-deterministic. That can have a big impact on what can and cannot be done.

Wait a sec... How'd this wind up in the cloning thread?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Non-deterministic locally? That would take some proving.

The issue is relevant I think, given the original question.

 

[color=blood red]It's possible that cloning is more advanced than we are led to believe. Then again, we could also be fooled into thinking cloning is more advanced than it actually is. It's hard to say. I have no idea how far off we are from cloning human beings. Although I've heard claims that it has already been done. Has anyone else heard of this? I personally think It is quite possible it has already been done (In secrecy).

As far as if cloning is right... that depends on who you ask. If you ask me; Hell no it isn't right. I do not believe we should tamper with such things. Just because we have the ability to do it, doesn't mean we should.

Cloning may have certain advantages, but it could very easily be used for the wrong purposes.[/color]

 

there are technical hurdles at the moment that prevent cloning of any primate.

 

[color=blood red]Would you care to enlighten me on what these "technical hurdles" are exactly? Or could you at least show me a link with information I can read? I'd like to know more than just that there are difficulties. I want to know what kind of difficulties, explained in detail. I'm here to learn.

Thanks.[/color]

 

see the second post in this thread

 

What is the moral and ethical problem with cloning again?
There are lots of biological problems, to do with proteins spindles and premature aging, but solving these difficulties will have possible benefits, perhaps even have an impact on longevity science.
But what is the big deal about cloning?
Creating a time delayed identical twin is all you are doing-
you are not creating a copy of the memories of the original, and I can't even see what the technology would be useful for...
perhaps cloning individual organs would be useful, but a whole clone of a human is a complete new person in his/her own right, and will have a completely different personality to the original.
Why is that useful,
or controversial?
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

 

The true value of clones is in transplants and similar medical procedures (grow a clone for a replacement heart, kidney, or lung). The cloning of "parts" may not be possible and, so, you must clone the whole organism. The moral dilemma then is are the clones really people? If yes, then the medical value of clones is (almost?) eliminated, but there are also profound religious implications to deal with (man now takes on the role of God). If no, then the medical value of clones is preserved, but you now have the problem of asking medical people to "kill" something that looks and acts like a person.

Quite a dilemma...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think it may one day be possible to clone "parts" as you say, without cloning the whole organism... I envision a pseudobody where stem cells could be stimulated to begin forming a liver or a kidney.... perhaps even an appendage. The conditions of the body would have to be duplicated: neural and circulatory systems, musculature, nourishment, etc.

It is certainly the stuff of science fiction now, but without continued research in cloning and stem cells, it always will.

The current limitation of cloning will likely be overcome, specifically meiotic spindle removal during nuclear transfer, then research can continue.

Objections to cloning are largely groundless and typically based on unfounded fears.

 

There's the problem in a nutshell. It's a good example of what someone has dubbed 'ostrichisation'. We're going to do it whatever the consequences, as usual.

 

One objection to cloning could be that the general public seems blissfully unaware of what cloning really entails. Have a look around at sciforums and you will see all wild speculations about the use of cloning.

That in itself could already be considered as a a great danger. It is almost certain that people will abuse cloning.
Some people for instance might see cloning as a solution to create a pool of fresh new bodyparts for the 'real' people: I have no clue how they propose to do this, but ideas like this indicate trouble.
Some people see cloning as a means to eternal life. Just grow a new body and somehow you live on. Again..how this could be done is a mystery, but still these things are said.
Then there is people who would like to clone specific people, because apparently they are somehow better. Once again, these people fail to understand that nature doesn't work like this.

And possibly you could continue this list and at pone point you might end up with an almost realistic application for cloning, but the strange thing is that I haven't really seen any realistic applications for human cloning.

Why would we want to clone humans? what is the purpose? tell me please?

 

The only valid reason I've ever been able to come up with, aside from the eventual possibility of being able to clone specific organs through an as yet determined laboratory process, is the obvious: reproduction.

Perhaps cloning will go the way of IVF, and become the method of choice for couples (infertile, homosexual, etc.) who cannot have children. Perhaps, too, it will eventually become the reproductive method of choice if a pseudobody can be developed to clone a fetus in the laboratory, thereby eliminating the need for the woman to carry a child full term or at all.

I recently listned to a neo-feminist that was spouting just this kind of announcement: "only when cloning free's women from the burden of childbirth will they be equal to men....," etc.

While I think this seems unlikely at present, it is possible if the research is allowed to continue. In fact, I think that there are likely many applications that we have yet to discover that the research will discover in the future.

 

It seems somehow silly to risk the health of your child for these kind of reasons. Sperm is not so difficult to get after all...

 

I won't deny that the risks appear to be to great, but I would point out that even IVF had similar problems. People thought that there would be physical deformities, people without souls, science run amok....

As it happens, there are some physical problems. The irony is that IVF would likely have been much safer had the research been properly funded rather than blatantly avoided by the government. Instead, private companies pushed the research, driven by profit rather than knowledge.

I think it's fair to say that we don't know what all the uses for cloning may be... it could be that there are no legitimate or practical uses, but it is probable that very useful technology and discovery will result from the research.

 

as i can remember cloning would add nothing to current IVF treatments than that the child would be of their own DNA. I'm not sure if that is so important. Otherwise people could always 'borrow' eggs and sperm and use current techniques to get the same effect.