Such moral high ground? Methinks you misunderstood, kmguru. Tis not high ground but low ground I observed. And no, because I do not personally agree, does not mean it will not be done. That should be evident from the context. It was the observation that when it is done that most likey the results offspringing from it will come to look like the thoughts within the post.
Human Cloning
- Thread starter kmguru
- Start date
<b>GENTEC Corporation</b><i> We build better people.</i>
Without doubt, cloning of all living organisms will eventually come. Whether or not it proves to be a good thing is to be seen. I say again, that I do not believe that now is the time to be experimenting on <u>human beings.</u>
At some point in the future, it may well become possible to manufacture people without using a female womb at all. I am sure that this is the ultimate goal of some genetic researchers. When the day comes that clones (or any forms of life) are produced entirely by machines, will they still be human, with the same human rights as the rest of us? Or will they become the property of a genetic corporation (GENTEC)? Will these humanoid's of the future become the property of the military if they are produced to replace soldiers of today? Will these "produced" soldiers have human rights?
Some may now say that these genetically produced people will have rights, but judging the cold, callus attitude of these same people toward a human fetus, and now the "who cares about deformed clones", I have no doubt that corporations of the future will sue for the right to own their produced cloned organisms that have some human-like attributes. From there, the courts will have to decide "how human" an organism has to be in order to have human rights.
<b><i>Doesn't a Chimp have about 97% of a human's DNA?</b></i>
So if corporation GENTEC produces hummanoid organisms of less than 100% human, then is the organism going to be considered human? Certainly a chimpanzee can be considered property. At what point between a chimp and a human will the organism lose it's rights? There is a very similar question before the courts in regard to when does a fetus become a human. Certainly the fetus is far more human than a chimp, but is not human, according to the courts!
As the capabilities of genetic researchers increase, so will the capability to produce a variety of humanoid lifeforms. If corporation GENTEC produces a living being that has 99% of human DNA, then what? Will the courts proclaim that it is human, or will it be property? Can it be bought and sold like a chimpanzee? Can it's internal organs be harvested and placed into people who can afford to buy them?
African people were once considered to less than human. So were aboriginal americans. These people simply didn't have 100% European DNA. In fact, I left asking who (or what) is 100% human.
Without doubt, cloning of all living organisms will eventually come. Whether or not it proves to be a good thing is to be seen. I say again, that I do not believe that now is the time to be experimenting on <u>human beings.</u>
At some point in the future, it may well become possible to manufacture people without using a female womb at all. I am sure that this is the ultimate goal of some genetic researchers. When the day comes that clones (or any forms of life) are produced entirely by machines, will they still be human, with the same human rights as the rest of us? Or will they become the property of a genetic corporation (GENTEC)? Will these humanoid's of the future become the property of the military if they are produced to replace soldiers of today? Will these "produced" soldiers have human rights?
Some may now say that these genetically produced people will have rights, but judging the cold, callus attitude of these same people toward a human fetus, and now the "who cares about deformed clones", I have no doubt that corporations of the future will sue for the right to own their produced cloned organisms that have some human-like attributes. From there, the courts will have to decide "how human" an organism has to be in order to have human rights.
<b><i>Doesn't a Chimp have about 97% of a human's DNA?</b></i>
So if corporation GENTEC produces hummanoid organisms of less than 100% human, then is the organism going to be considered human? Certainly a chimpanzee can be considered property. At what point between a chimp and a human will the organism lose it's rights? There is a very similar question before the courts in regard to when does a fetus become a human. Certainly the fetus is far more human than a chimp, but is not human, according to the courts!
As the capabilities of genetic researchers increase, so will the capability to produce a variety of humanoid lifeforms. If corporation GENTEC produces a living being that has 99% of human DNA, then what? Will the courts proclaim that it is human, or will it be property? Can it be bought and sold like a chimpanzee? Can it's internal organs be harvested and placed into people who can afford to buy them?
African people were once considered to less than human. So were aboriginal americans. These people simply didn't have 100% European DNA. In fact, I left asking who (or what) is 100% human.
Last edited:
kmguru
Staff member
This is an extremely thorny issue. You can go to Afrika, pick up the gene from a masai tribe, redesign the gene to look more closely like a chimp (like giving a lot of hair), setup human IQ to 75, drop the voice box so as not to have full speech capability, only sign language, sexually sterile - and you have a designer mammal for doing household work.
I think 100% human is an avarage gene structure of 15 million people from various ethnic background.
I am 100% against harvesting body parts from a full grown body (at this time). If you can grow specific body parts, that may be acceptable.
I think 100% human is an avarage gene structure of 15 million people from various ethnic background.
I am 100% against harvesting body parts from a full grown body (at this time). If you can grow specific body parts, that may be acceptable.
!0% is acceptable? Was that not about the rate of death per troops in the Vietnam war where we were actually being shot at with the intent of being injured? And here we are not talking soldiers who's business is to risk life and limb, here we are talking innocents who have not choice. No say whatever. If we do not say for them, who will? The corporations who the Professor speaks of? A fine lot that will be! Better to let race car drivers set the speed limit for the United States as far impartiality goes. And to be honest I think we might come out better on the race car driver scenario for at least they realize that not everyone is so qualified.
So who will set the acceptables? Who will deem ahead of development which are suitable for entry into the human race and who is not? Smacks of playing God to me. Are you qualified for such a task? Are any? Who is to say that this disability or deforminity is not ok? And if you were the one allowed to be born, would it not occur to you somewhere along the line they could have done that which would have helped you not to be that way? Would you not hold resentment that you were not considered worthy for help, and that help provided by way of genetic remedy prior to birth?
The Professor alludes to what could happen if these clones were considered property, chattel without the same rights as those natural born. Where is the line that says you pass and you do not. Will those lines be forever static? No more than things are today. Your taxes are not static. Corporations are not static. In a sense corporations are a living entity in that they have legal standing much the same as a person would. To not be human would seem to deny those legal standings. Otherwise any could file suit to become human and in doing so would circumvent taht designed to prevent them from doing so. I'm sorry but this does not stack up as something equitable. We would be returning to the days of slaves.
So who will set the acceptables? Who will deem ahead of development which are suitable for entry into the human race and who is not? Smacks of playing God to me. Are you qualified for such a task? Are any? Who is to say that this disability or deforminity is not ok? And if you were the one allowed to be born, would it not occur to you somewhere along the line they could have done that which would have helped you not to be that way? Would you not hold resentment that you were not considered worthy for help, and that help provided by way of genetic remedy prior to birth?
The Professor alludes to what could happen if these clones were considered property, chattel without the same rights as those natural born. Where is the line that says you pass and you do not. Will those lines be forever static? No more than things are today. Your taxes are not static. Corporations are not static. In a sense corporations are a living entity in that they have legal standing much the same as a person would. To not be human would seem to deny those legal standings. Otherwise any could file suit to become human and in doing so would circumvent taht designed to prevent them from doing so. I'm sorry but this does not stack up as something equitable. We would be returning to the days of slaves.
kmguru
Staff member
My wishes on Genetics:
Understanding of the genetic sequence such that we can repair every part of the body including genetic defects and also provide cosmetic enhancements at any age. This is possible because we can manage the cell reproduction in living tissue. So the need for organ transplant will go away.
We should develop an electronic transmitter to turn on or off certain hormonal and endocrine activities adjunt to drug delivery.
By repairing and enhancing human bodies in situ, we may eliminate cloning or designer subhumans. While we are at it we should not create super humans too. That is just as you have a speed limit range of 45 to 75 in US. The law should be made that no human will be agumentated beyond a range of say 100 to 300 IQ points.
It is like those who use Rogain and those who do not. The advantages are minimal so as not to cause a large disparity in the society.
This rules out cloning altogether. A law should be established that only a childless couple will be allowed a male and female clone of themselves as their offspring. Because by then genetic modifications are possible, so the genetic traits of the cloned son and daughter could be adjusted to reflect both the parents and not just one. It should be a capital offense for those who break this law.
That will rule out one million clone soldiers that eat tree leaves and have 4 stomachs (or creating Gumbas a la Mario Bros).
In fact if we can repair the human body by advanced genetics, the requirement for cloning will disappear. Because the childless couple can be fertile again through the DNa and cell regeneration process which is very doable (Salmanders do it...)
After much thinking, I SAY NO to CLONING to grow full humans, subhumans, superhumans under my above scenario. The money is better spent in the repair side.
Understanding of the genetic sequence such that we can repair every part of the body including genetic defects and also provide cosmetic enhancements at any age. This is possible because we can manage the cell reproduction in living tissue. So the need for organ transplant will go away.
We should develop an electronic transmitter to turn on or off certain hormonal and endocrine activities adjunt to drug delivery.
By repairing and enhancing human bodies in situ, we may eliminate cloning or designer subhumans. While we are at it we should not create super humans too. That is just as you have a speed limit range of 45 to 75 in US. The law should be made that no human will be agumentated beyond a range of say 100 to 300 IQ points.
It is like those who use Rogain and those who do not. The advantages are minimal so as not to cause a large disparity in the society.
This rules out cloning altogether. A law should be established that only a childless couple will be allowed a male and female clone of themselves as their offspring. Because by then genetic modifications are possible, so the genetic traits of the cloned son and daughter could be adjusted to reflect both the parents and not just one. It should be a capital offense for those who break this law.
That will rule out one million clone soldiers that eat tree leaves and have 4 stomachs (or creating Gumbas a la Mario Bros).
In fact if we can repair the human body by advanced genetics, the requirement for cloning will disappear. Because the childless couple can be fertile again through the DNa and cell regeneration process which is very doable (Salmanders do it...)
After much thinking, I SAY NO to CLONING to grow full humans, subhumans, superhumans under my above scenario. The money is better spent in the repair side.
Kmuguru I think you are on to something.
I think that there should be no human cloning at all. As for genetic modifications, they should only be done to enhance health, which is prohibits appearance modifications unless you are grossley disfigured as part of a birth defect.
IQ modifications may have to be set against the intelligence of future computers with an "alien intelligence" so that we may keep closer to them in brain functions.
This whole thing scares me. I know that I will never permit my child to have genetic modifications to enhance looks or any other superficial feature. What counts is a person's insides, not their appearance.
I think that there should be no human cloning at all. As for genetic modifications, they should only be done to enhance health, which is prohibits appearance modifications unless you are grossley disfigured as part of a birth defect.
IQ modifications may have to be set against the intelligence of future computers with an "alien intelligence" so that we may keep closer to them in brain functions.
This whole thing scares me. I know that I will never permit my child to have genetic modifications to enhance looks or any other superficial feature. What counts is a person's insides, not their appearance.
I am reminded of the old movie "Blade Runner."
Damn fine posts by all!
Yeah, I think we should leave this can sealed, strapped to the back of a rocket and hurled past Pluto. This is bound to create the largest cultural backlash in history. I can't think of any other event that people have been appaled by except for maybe the Holocaust.
Granted the Holocaust was a bit different than Human Cloning but the same in the fact that both are practically crimes against humanity.
Here's another question if cloned, especially from only one parent, female obvioulsy, would it have a soul?
Without a sould many followers of religion wouldn't consider it to be human. This opens a Pandora's box which has never been seen. It used to be differences between religions, now it maybe differences between those with a sould, and an unholy child of somesort.
Treading in uncharted waters.
Granted the Holocaust was a bit different than Human Cloning but the same in the fact that both are practically crimes against humanity.
Here's another question if cloned, especially from only one parent, female obvioulsy, would it have a soul?
Without a sould many followers of religion wouldn't consider it to be human. This opens a Pandora's box which has never been seen. It used to be differences between religions, now it maybe differences between those with a sould, and an unholy child of somesort.
Treading in uncharted waters.
kmguru
Staff member
thecurly1 wrote
We do cosmetic enhancements everyday. My proposal is not the enhancement that can be only done before birth but the one that can be done at any age. Then it equalizes the playing field. Cosmetic surgery is done all the time. If your nose is longer than your "part" you should be able to take a pill for a few months to get it right.
Unless we give the society an alternate choice, it is going to happen and life on this planet will not be the same.
And I like the idea of IQ enhancement to keep up with the silicon intelligence. We should work on technology that is applicable at any age at best or till ones 60s at worst.
We do cosmetic enhancements everyday. My proposal is not the enhancement that can be only done before birth but the one that can be done at any age. Then it equalizes the playing field. Cosmetic surgery is done all the time. If your nose is longer than your "part" you should be able to take a pill for a few months to get it right.
Unless we give the society an alternate choice, it is going to happen and life on this planet will not be the same.
And I like the idea of IQ enhancement to keep up with the silicon intelligence. We should work on technology that is applicable at any age at best or till ones 60s at worst.
<i>
There was another movie out a few years back. I cannot remember it's title. It dealt with the genetic <i>improvements</i> of unborn children. Uma Thurman was in this movie.
In the time period, it became possible for parents to have their unborn children recieve genetic improvements. The first child of this couple had no modifications and was born naturally. His parents opted to have his younger brother genetically improved.
As time passed, the parents regretted not having genetic improvements made on the first son. The reason being that almost all other children of wealthy parents, had been modified and were the ones who got the best professional jobs and became the professional athletes,.... while children who were un-modified ended up as janitors, sanitation workers, low skilled laborers, ect..
In fact, as the natural born son grew up, he worked harder than anyone else and often overcame his rivals, in his attempt to become an astronaut. But he was never even considered because of his "flawed genes." Eventually he used the DNA samples of an injured genetically refined athlete to pass the genetic tests, which were being done by all corporations, businesses, ect..
<i>
<b>Who knows what the future may bring in our Brave New World? </b>
</i>
There was another movie out a few years back. I cannot remember it's title. It dealt with the genetic <i>improvements</i> of unborn children. Uma Thurman was in this movie.
In the time period, it became possible for parents to have their unborn children recieve genetic improvements. The first child of this couple had no modifications and was born naturally. His parents opted to have his younger brother genetically improved.
As time passed, the parents regretted not having genetic improvements made on the first son. The reason being that almost all other children of wealthy parents, had been modified and were the ones who got the best professional jobs and became the professional athletes,.... while children who were un-modified ended up as janitors, sanitation workers, low skilled laborers, ect..
In fact, as the natural born son grew up, he worked harder than anyone else and often overcame his rivals, in his attempt to become an astronaut. But he was never even considered because of his "flawed genes." Eventually he used the DNA samples of an injured genetically refined athlete to pass the genetic tests, which were being done by all corporations, businesses, ect..
<i>
</i>
<b>Who knows what the future may bring in our Brave New World? </b>
Exactly. Thats what we should be afraid of. For the past century we have strived to teach our progeny that what counts is there intelligence and kind heartness. I don't want to see all that work unravel in 20 years worth of genetic revolution.
Predicting the future is ultimately a fool's game. Nothing comes out to exactly what we tried to predict, in this case I hope this prediction proves to be just that, a prediction not a prophecy.
Predicting the future is ultimately a fool's game. Nothing comes out to exactly what we tried to predict, in this case I hope this prediction proves to be just that, a prediction not a prophecy.
I am not so sure that I would like for my grandchildren to have no chance at being more than a sanitation worker, while everyone else was being born to be scientists, leaders, athletes, ect... I don't have anything against low skilled laborers, but if I knew that my grandchildren had NO chance of competing with the genetically purified, then I might consider the enhancements for my decendants also. It would be a matter of my decendant's survival. Not unlike natural selection, the most fit to survive will survive, while the weaker will simply be pushed out of existance!
Gattaca
<b>Gattaca</b> 1997.
http://www.nitrateonline.com/rgattaca.html
<img src="http://www.nitrateonline.com/images/rgattaca.gif">
<img src="http://www.nitrateonline.com/images/rgattaca-1.jpg">
Written and Directed by Andrew Niccol
Starring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman,
Jude Law, Gore Vidal, Alan Arkin, Loren Dean,
Tony Shalhoub,and Ernest Borgnine
<b>Welcome to Gattaca, a land in the "not-too-distant" future where discrimination is "down to a science," or perhaps attributed just to science itself. It’s a world where your resume is "in your genes", where social winners and social losers are determined not by popularity, but by your genetic code. In this world, "natural" childbirth means getting the right pre-natal mixture of DNA and behavioral traits; it’s called giving the child "the best possible start," but it really means condemning those born without genetic intervention (the so-called "invalids") to a life as servants to those above.</b>
http://www.nitrateonline.com/rgattaca.html
<b>Gattaca</b> 1997.
http://www.nitrateonline.com/rgattaca.html
<img src="http://www.nitrateonline.com/images/rgattaca.gif">
<img src="http://www.nitrateonline.com/images/rgattaca-1.jpg">
Written and Directed by Andrew Niccol
Starring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman,
Jude Law, Gore Vidal, Alan Arkin, Loren Dean,
Tony Shalhoub,and Ernest Borgnine
<b>Welcome to Gattaca, a land in the "not-too-distant" future where discrimination is "down to a science," or perhaps attributed just to science itself. It’s a world where your resume is "in your genes", where social winners and social losers are determined not by popularity, but by your genetic code. In this world, "natural" childbirth means getting the right pre-natal mixture of DNA and behavioral traits; it’s called giving the child "the best possible start," but it really means condemning those born without genetic intervention (the so-called "invalids") to a life as servants to those above.</b>
http://www.nitrateonline.com/rgattaca.html
kmguru
Staff member
You guys misunderstood me. I agree with you in relation to gene manipulation before birth, which creates a disadvantage for those that did not. And therefore that should be banned except in the management of deseases.
What I am talking about is gene therapy after birth at any age. The cost will be very low because the way the gene is modified and inserted to the cell. The pill (chemical insertion) or more likely a high pressure sonic insertion is simple and effective. That way like cosmetic surgery, you have the procedure done at a nominal price.
Today people use special chemicals to compete in Sports. You think the wrestle mania group does not use any chemicals? Goto any GNC store. You will see specialized products for sports. On top of that people are using steroids and Hgh (human growth hormone) to bulk up. Is it fair? In the brain department, I have experimented with chemicals that speeds up brain activity to solve complex problems. It is all after birth my friend and being used now...
Gene therapy only aguments...
(I am against Gataca type therapy...except genetic deseases...)
What I am talking about is gene therapy after birth at any age. The cost will be very low because the way the gene is modified and inserted to the cell. The pill (chemical insertion) or more likely a high pressure sonic insertion is simple and effective. That way like cosmetic surgery, you have the procedure done at a nominal price.
Today people use special chemicals to compete in Sports. You think the wrestle mania group does not use any chemicals? Goto any GNC store. You will see specialized products for sports. On top of that people are using steroids and Hgh (human growth hormone) to bulk up. Is it fair? In the brain department, I have experimented with chemicals that speeds up brain activity to solve complex problems. It is all after birth my friend and being used now...
Gene therapy only aguments...
(I am against Gataca type therapy...except genetic deseases...)
Here you open another potentially volatile door. The one of haves vs. have nots. We give this pill, or however dispensed, (At what cost) to those we would have be on level with the machine intelligence. How about the rest? Are you condemned because you don't have the money, or the opportunity to do so? Or maybe the last upgrade to make this one effective? Talk about a new version of Bill Gates monopolistic practices.
Are we in essence setting up a priesthood to interpret and pass down what the machines have thought up next for the lowly serfs?
Are we in essence setting up a priesthood to interpret and pass down what the machines have thought up next for the lowly serfs?