For or against cloning ?

[Maciamo]

The first human clone has officially been born (but it's very possible it isn't the first, just that others were kept secret).

What is your opinion about cloning ?

Personally, I don't see any problem with cloning.

As in my opinion humans are no more than more intelligent animals, human and animal or plant cloning should not be seen differently. There has been sheep or other animals cloned years ago, but the population has accepted it. What's the difference with humans. I hear people saying its dangerous. Why ? Why human clones are more dangerous than animal's ?

Lots of people overreact because they are affraid of what they don't know. If the society had decided to ban planes because humans were not supposed to fly, where would we be now ?

Furthermore, clones have always existed naturally; we call them twins.

In vitro reproduction is praised by some for giving the opportunity to infertile couples to have a baby; why is it so much more shocking with cloning ?

Genetically modified food is readily available, but the same people that defend it now want to ban human cloning. The only reason behind this must be religious, not rational or scientific. Once we have started muddling with DNA, be it that of a plant, a cat or a human, the most important ethic step was taken. Relatively few people would argue that GM food is morally condemnable (they just refrain from eating it if they feel affraid). Scientist have been searching for a way cure hereditary diseases or mental "weaknesses" (a euphemism for illness) and when people view it like that, it is praiseworthy. Once we talk about making twins in the same tubes that have been used for decades with in vitro, people panic and call a immediate international ban. Did I miss something ?

[Andocrates]

It does raise some troubling moral questions, but so what. We'll deal. The idea that someday a doctor could grow me a new organ is worth the moral qualms.

[cstaylor]

Did I miss something ?

Yes, you missed quite a bit. ]The first human clone has officially been born (but it's very possible it isn't the first, just that others were kept secret).[/quote]
Not my field of study, but from my layman's view of reproductive cloning (the part of cloning involved here), I give it a 0% possibility that these fruitcakes actually pulled it off on the very first try.

What is your opinion about cloning ?

Stem cell cloning: good. Reproductive cloning: morally repugnant.

Personally, I don't see any problem with cloning.

Glad you're not dictating policy on this.

As in my opinion humans are no more than more intelligent animals, human and animal or plant cloning should not be seen differently.

That logic doesn't make any sense to me. Are you equating plants and animals on the basis of Materialism?

There has been sheep or other animals cloned years ago, but the population has accepted it.

No, the population did not "accept it". The scientists were very clear that this form of science was going to lead us to stem cell cloning, with the goal of extending and improving human life. Most people that I know accept that... and are ambivalent if not hostile to reproductive cloning.

What's the difference with humans.

Go and search the Internet (try the NY Times) on articles concerning primate cloning. 3 billion base pairs... the odds are high that something will go very wrong (and they haven't successfully cloned a primate AFAIK)

I hear people saying its dangerous. Why ? Why human clones are more dangerous than animal's ?

It's not physically dangerous (if you discount the horrifying spectre of deformed failures or the psychological damage to the scientific staff dealing with their Frankenstein mistakes), but legally dangerous. Would the legal rights of clones be equal to non-clones (and that includes so-called "test tube" babies, because artificial insemination only alters the location of fertilization, not the entire process), or would we have created a new class of disposable humans?

Lots of people overreact because they are affraid of what they don't know. If the society had decided to ban planes because humans were not supposed to fly, where would we be now ?

This is bad logic. You are arguing from analogy: that flying a plane and designing a human being (or at least shimming a replacement genetic sequence into an human egg) are the same because they are new technological advancements. I argue that they are not the same because airplanes and other machines are not endowed with rights and other legal protections from tyranny

Furthermore, clones have always existed naturally]
Not the same thing. You are arguing that the results justify the means: on one hand, you end up with two beings that share the original code from the same fertilized egg, and on the other you have a being that has the same genetic code as someone else.

In vitro reproduction is praised by some for giving the opportunity to infertile couples to have a baby]
See above.

Genetically modified food is readily available, but the same people that defend it now want to ban human cloning.

Not exactly the same people. I'm not from Europe, but I thought that the anti "Frankenfood" movement was sweeping rural areas of France (much to the chagrin of the American engineered-food conglomerates)

The only reason behind this must be religious, not rational or scientific

No, it's prudent caution: what happens when genetically engineered seed enters the general population? Could it push out non-engineered foods? What are the consequences to the ecosystem when alien elements (such as genetically engineered foods) start occupying parts of the food chain?

Once we have started muddling with DNA, be it that of a plant, a cat or a human, the most important ethic step was taken.

So, there's no turning back? We might as well continue on the downwards spiral?

Relatively few people would argue that GM food is morally condemnable (they just refrain from eating it if they feel affraid).

Why do we need Frankenfood? We have the capacity to feed most of the planet now with our natural food supplies at the present, and all plants produce their own seed for growing the next generation. Do you trust corporations not to monkey with that?

Why do we need Frankenbabies? We have enough people already on this planet... we need to create more in the laboratory?

[Maciamo]

I'll try and answer that.

It's not physically dangerous (if you discount the horrifying spectre of deformed failures or the psychological damage to the scientific staff dealing with their Frankenstein mistakes),

Why would they make disformed humans ? This is genetical engireering, not cloning. I am not an expert, so I could be mistaken, but inmy understanding, cloning is just taking someone's DNA and creating cells or a baby from it. There should be not change in the DNA if you want it to be compatible (for organs, stem cells, etc.). That is why I believe that genetical engineering is more dangerous than simple cloning.

but legally dangerous. Would the legal rights of clones be equal to non-clones (and that includes so-called "test tube" babies, because artificial insemination only alters the location of fertilization, not the entire process), or would we have created a new class of disposable humans?

I can't believe that people think like you ! Of course clones or in virto fertilised ("test-tube") babies should have the same legal rights as anyone else. That's a basic human right. I probably can't understand why some people would not want to give them the same rights because I am an Atheist and therefore don't believe in God giving life, soul, playing the gods ourselves, etc. Religion can be a vicious thing. Christians and Jewish at least feel they have some kind of supernatural reason of existence (a soul, made by God) or are superior to any other lifekind. That is why they don't see any problem with destryoing their environment, except the moral one of preserving God's creation. That's sickly. We are all part of the material world. Thus any human being, clone or not, have the same rights.

Well. men invented human rights (not so long ago), but these philosopher (Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot...) who have come with the idea were atheist or deist, not Christians. It's no wonder that the people opposed to cloning should thence be Christians or religious people (mostly monotheist). Just have a look at the comment on the BBC site, there is a discussion about cloning. Most people who oppose it fiercely come up with religious justifications (comments such as "cloning is a crime against humanity and God. " or "That man should so blatantly interfere in nature, and something that God has created is news that makes me not so much sick as fearful.")

I'd also like to talk about the opposition between stem cell cloning or full babies cloning. Most people tend at least to agree that cloning stem cells for medical reason is a good thing. What people are usually affraid of is to see an army of 100 people the same like in some sci-fi movies. I don't know why anyone should do that. I am not against regulations of such excess.

However, I don't see any problem with cloning a baby to the image of someone (most likely an adult). The baby would have the same DNA, but would be born at a different epoch, place and have a completely different life whatsoever. Our environment and education are certainly play a much more essential role in the development of one's personality and conduct that the genes alone. Even intelligence is nothing genetically without a good education, nutrition and a positive environment. Just take 2 (real) twins, separated from birth and raised in completely different families, social background, even in different languages. These twins, sharing the same DNA, will have little in common except the physical appearance and maybe resistance, immunity, etc. I know that because I have read a lot about such cases of twins in psychological, educational or neuroscientific books. I know a few real twins myself. A pair of them, raised in the same family, looked exactly identical, but once you got to know them, they had very different interests and quite different character too (one was much kinder than the other, for instance).

Therefore, I am almost convinced that if you cloned a Hitler or Einstein, the clone, raised in a different world, the former would not become a dictator or racist, and the latter probably not a reknown genius (but possibly a mathemtician or scientist).

No, the population did not "accept [animal cloning]".

That depends who. Anyway that is years since the first animal clone was born and I almost never hear of protest or demonstration to make it illegal. So that means, people have accepted it in some way.

That logic doesn't make any sense to me. Are you equating plants and animals on the basis of Materialism?

Yes. As I said I am an Atheist (philosophically convinced), so I don't see how you could consider humans if not animals (just a question of vocabulary maybe).

[cstaylor]

I'll try and answer that.
Why would they make disformed humans ?

I assure you, it's not on purpose. In comparison to artificial insemination, cloning (a t this time) requires far more trial-and-error approach. In addition, these scientists are changing the process of how life begins]I am not an expert, so I could be mistaken, but inmy understanding, cloning is just taking someone's DNA and creating cells or a baby from it. There should be not change in the DNA if you want it to be compatible (for organs, stem cells, etc.). That is why I believe that genetical engineering is more dangerous than simple cloning.[/quote]
Yes, but nature works in mysterious ways sometimes. Did you go and find any articles concerning the horrific failures of primate cloning?

but legally dangerous. Would the legal rights of clones be equal to non-clones (and that includes so-called "test tube" babies, because artificial insemination only alters the location of fertilization, not the entire process), or would we have created a new class of disposable humans?

I can't believe that people think like you ! Of course clones or in virto fertilised ("test-tube") babies should have the same legal rights as anyone else.

Artificial insemination is the same as natural fertilization (as I stated above). Cloning? I can't imagine the problems to our legal framework if cloned humans are permitted the same legal rights as the rest of us... so, if you are cloned, which "Maciamo" is the real one? The DNA is the same, so that kind of testing is out...

That's a basic human right.

Human is the appropriate word here. If you accept that cloned homo sapiens are "human" and deserve "rights", then mistakes made by cloning scientists should be considered crimes against humanity, because they (whether they intended to or not) will make mistakes, and some of those mistakes will live a short, tortured existence.

Well. men invented human rights (not so long ago), but these philosopher (Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot...) who have come with the idea were atheist or deist, not Christians.

Probably the most important of the philosophers (as related to human rights) was John Locke and Natural Law... and what does Natural Law suppose? That man has rights endowed by his creator (however it came about). When man starts to design and create other men, how will that fit with what we have now.

Religion can be a vicious thing. Christians and Jewish at least feel they have some kind of supernatural reason of existence (a soul, made by God) or are superior to any other lifekind.

... now go back to those philosophers you listed and point out one that disagrees with this statement: "Men are superior to all other beasts".

That is why they don't see any problem with destryoing their environment, except the moral one of preserving God's creation.

And you haven't seen anything yet... imagine frankenfood seed pushing out our natural foods... plant types that have grown through natural selection for generations. That's the sick part.

Anyway that is years since the first animal clone was born and I almost never hear of protest or demonstration to make it illegal. So that means, people have accepted it in some way.

That's because the scientific community as a whole (except for these wackos in Canada) have come together to not work on reproductive cloning in the short-term.

You still haven't answered my question about the necessity for reproductive human cloning. Why do we need frankenbabies?

[GomiGirl]

Let me start with the fact that while I am in favour of the science of cloning, I am not in favour of the politics. For me religion is not an issue that should play a part in this debate.

Why would they make disformed humans ?

It is an extremely difficult process..

BTW My first degree is in Biotech - I used to work with replicating strands of DNA in-vitro and it is an extremely difficult process with so many variables.. I was only working on short lengths of DNA and not anything the size of a human chromosome.. we used to run them up in batch sizes in the hundreds to get only a few that were viable. Even then there were errors in the sequencing.

The paradox is that DNA is very robust but still extremely fragile... bit like humans as a whole actually.

This is genetical engireering, not cloning. I am not an expert, so I could be mistaken, but inmy understanding, cloning is just taking someone's DNA and creating cells or a baby from it.

In theory this is correct - the practice is so much different. You cannot just take DNA and shove an egg that has had the nuclei removed to make a zygote. The act of conception starts a chain reaction that leads to a successful and viable zygote that then needs to meet a whole heap of other criteria before an actual pregnancy is possible. It is a miracle that natural pregnancies happen at all given all the natural barriers.

but legally dangerous. Would the legal rights of clones be equal to non-clones (and that includes so-called "test tube" babies, because artificial insemination only alters the location of fertilization, not the entire process), or would we have created a new class of disposable humans?

I can't believe that people think like you ! Of course clones or in virto fertilised ("test-tube") babies should have the same legal rights as anyone else. That's a basic human right.

I agree with CS on the danger of this - it is not what he (or me) believes, rather what I can see as a possible future senario.

This is where the real problems lay for the future of clones and cloning. Perhaps I have seen Blade Runner a few too many times, but it is human nature to try to put ourselves above others, or think ourselves better than other and use whatever means possible. Some people use morally repugnant methods to achieve this, others are just ignorant.

Look at slavery as an extreme example. The slaves were not considered people, just workers who were not paid a salary and who were taken from their homes without consent. They had no rights, no names other than their owners names.

However, as a less emotive example, what about all of the people who are encouraged to move from impoverished countries to developed countries to get paid low salaries to do the dirty, dangerous or undesirable jobs. I can think of numerous examples of this: Southern Mediteranean people who worked on the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme in the 1950's in Ausralia, Polynesian Islanders brought in to work on the cane fields in North Queensland, the Brazillians in the factories around Nagoya, Fillipino maids in HK and other Asian countries etc etc etc.

In each case there is a huge amount of discrimination against the expatriates as the local population see them as in a lower class. This is unfortunate and dangerous as these people are the most vulnerable to be exploited. Yes this is morally wrong, but it happens today all around us.

This is what is the potential danger with clones. They will not be seen as people, rather as manufactured for a purpose. If we cannot have harmony and equality between the races, or even between the sexes, cloning is just going to open up another huge can of political and ethical worms.

We can't even protect the human rights of everybody now...

The law-makers will not be able to keep up with opportunists seeking to exploit clones as has happened since the time there were first slaves.. back in the caveman times.

Therefore, I am almost convinced that if you cloned a Hitler or Einstein, the clone, raised in a different world, the former would not become a dictator or racist, and the latter probably not a reknown genius (but possibly a mathemtician or scientist).

I agree with you - nature vs nuture. The environment a child is raised has an enormous impact in shaping the person they become.

Personally, I see that a cloned person would be a unique person etc etc, but many people wouldn't. It is such a political and ethical slippery slope. If it were just about the science, then I say, "no problem", however, as it is in the hands of people with power.. I say, lets take the time to have checks and balances.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely... (sic)

[cstaylor]

That logic doesn't make any sense to me. Are you equating plants and animals on the basis of Materialism?

Yes. As I said I am an Atheist (philosophically convinced), so I don't see how you could consider humans if not animals (just a question of vocabulary maybe).

Just to make sure we're talking the same thing: Materialism is that category of philosophy that disregards any notion of spirit, assuming that all things can be explained as physical, chemical, and electrical reactions. To a Materialist, man's ability to build tools, form commerce, raise food instead of gathering it, create civilizations, languages, art, and technology can all be explained through the physical complexity of the human brain and its various electro-chemical responses.
So, when I asked you if you are equating men, lesser animals, and plants on the basis of Materialism, I was asking you if you believed that humans should be treated like animals or plants, or in other words, as a means to an end. Some notable people in history fall into one category or another of Materialists, four of the most (in)famous of the 20th century being Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

[cstaylor]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely... (sic)

Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

[Maciamo]

I can't imagine the problems to our legal framework if cloned humans are permitted the same legal rights as the rest of us... so, if you are cloned, which "Maciamo" is the real one? The DNA is the same, so that kind of testing is out...

As I said before, real twins have the same problem (they also have the same DNA). Actually it is much simplier with clones than twins, because a clone would be born usually years after the "original". The age difference cannot be changed, what makes it incredibly easy to know who's who. What's more they can obviously have different names (e.g., in the UK, everyone can change its full name very easily and as many times as they want) to differentiate them. Why do you want a "real one" ? In twins, is there one more real than the other ? Strange reasoning...

Human is the appropriate word here. If you accept that cloned homo sapiens are "human" and deserve "rights", then mistakes made by cloning scientists should be considered crimes against humanity, because they (whether they intended to or not) will make mistakes, and some of those mistakes will live a short, tortured existence.

And what if there were homo sapiens (we are homo sapiens sapiens BTW) or homo erectus or even australopitecus ? They aren't modern humans, but still life being. I don't think its more "right" to kill chimps or gorillas than humans. Do you know that the most intelligent apes can have an IQ of 70, which is like an "idiot" human (about 1/1000 of the people on earth statistically).

You still haven't answered my question about the necessity for reproductive human cloning. Why do we need frankenbabies?

Whatever mistake can be done at the beginning (like for everything useful today, like vaccinations, operations...), cloning might open new opportunities for the developement of society.

Some people fear that the society, in a fit of eugenia, start cloning celebrities or beautiful people and that we'll end up seeing everybody look the same in the streets. Because such concern is widespread, I am fairly sure that it won't happen - at least not in a large scale. Very few people want "perfect" children that are not "genetically" theirs.

If they start cloning themselves, the good point is that one can give the best education possible to their clone (BTW, they probably won't want 2 the same) as they know themselves better than anybody else. The common mistake parents make is believing their (true) children are like them and deciding what they should do in function of their own desires. Natural children are only 50% similar to each parent and the resulting genetical bland is gives more often than not a very different individual. That is the cause of most parent-child problems. Parents's ideals often don't match their children's. With clones, this barrier won't exist anymore and the parent (don't need 2 anymore) can be in perfect harmony with his cloned baby. It surely sounds shocking nowadays, but it might well be the future of our civilisation. Or will it be ? Not everybody likes themselves enough to want to be cloned. My impression is that more people still prefer having children naturally with their loved one rather than having a child 100% like them. Others are affraid of what their children might look like (fear of being disappointed with their "life-investment") and would give a lot of money either to customize their offspring (genetical engineering) or simply be cloned (usually when they feel superior to other people).

GomiGirl, I don't understand why clones should be made to become slaves. Do you mean slave of the original DNA person ? That seems absurd, as they will be perfectly equal. I wouldn't want to hurt somebody who is exactly like me (like a twin if I had one). I rather think that people want to clone themselves (and just once) instead of having a child. So they'd care the most they can about this child, as it's not just 50% them (like now), but 100%. These cloned children would only have a father or a mother, but not possibly both. That why the single parent (very contemporary, isn't it ?) should take care of their clone. No one else is there to do it.

[GomiGirl]

I agree that for a previously childless couple/single person raising a child (albeit a clone) would nurture and care for the child as they should. I have no problem with this positive benefit of the technology.

The big BUT here is about those people (not me) who would see cloning as a means of growing a workforce with certain characteristics and would treat people born in this way as less than human.

I don't want clones to become slaves.... But you have to see that cloning has the potential to offer such repugnant opportunities to greedy or reprobative people if left unchecked. Obviously in a perfect world this would not be a problem, however, history has shown us again and again that some will jump at any opportunity to discriminate against others or worse still deny basic human rights on a group just because they can - or enough people didn't do anything about stopping it.

You state the points in favour of cloning - these are not in dispute. But don't be naive about the ethics of others. You say that you don't _think_ that bad things will happen.. slavery is a historical fact and is still happening in some parts of the world. genocide happens, the holocaust happened, wars happen. On a much smaller scale, people are already choosing the sex of their children by aborting after the sex has been determined from scans. I don't know the exact figures, but since the one child policy in China, men outnumber women by a huge percentage.

Power shifts constantly and your rights as a person shifts with it (your right to privacy has been recently affected). Your rights even vary from country to country. For example, when I moved to Japan, I forfeited the right to vote for/against the government of my residence.

As a XX chromosome person (female), my rights are very different in different countries. I learnt today that the divorce laws in Japan are different for men and women. After a divorce, a man may re-marry immediately, however, a woman must wait 12 months. So my chromosomes occassionally determine what rights I have or don't have. Lets not start on what is happening in countries that enforce the wearing of the veil.

My argument for checks and balances on the use of the technology is based on the fact that I _know_ there are far less ethical people than myself who have alot more power than I.

[Maciamo]

Just to make sure we're talking the same thing: Materialism is that category of philosophy that disregards any notion of spirit, assuming that all things can be explained as physical, chemical, and electrical reactions. To a Materialist, man's ability to build tools, form commerce, raise food instead of gathering it, create civilizations, languages, art, and technology can all be explained through the physical complexity of the human brain and its various electro-chemical responses.

Yes, that's exactly how I see it.

So, when I asked you if you are equating men, lesser animals, and plants on the basis of Materialism, I was asking you if you believed that humans should be treated like animals or plants, or in other words, as a means to an end. Some notable people in history fall into one category or another of Materialists, four of the most (in)famous of the 20th century being Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

That's where you don't understand me anymore. Materialist exist in different shapes. Buddhism is a form of Materialism. Buddhism believes in one infinite material universe that comprise all that exist. BTW, there is no gods in Buddhism, because we are just part of the nature. We could say that Nirvana is escaping the suffering of life by understanding how the universe function.

All materialist must make their own choices about life (moral, way of living, etc.). I am a Humanist Materialist, which means I put Human progress and happiness first. I would be more of a "Vitalist" (care about all life-beings). That's why I see cloning as a wonderful opportunity for the protection of species. If we can preserve the DNA of each species (plant and animal), we are also able to recreate each of them at any time in the future if they become extinct (because today's society hasn't been able to protect them).

The 4 Materialists you cited were not Humanist (I'd say anti-Humanist). In Star Wars terms (now common language), they chose the dark side of the force. For some reason Materialism has a bad image among the masses. However there are lots of famous and very honorable Materialists, starting from Democritus (460 - 370 BC). For example, D. Diderot, D. Hume, F. Nietsche, C.Darwin, J.P. Sarte... You could even add Spinoza (actually pantheist, but that's hardly a difference of vocabulary) and Bertrand Russel. Let's say there philosophy is not at all incompatible with mine.
Another prominent materialist is neuroscientist Antonio Damasio. I strongly recommend his book Descartes'error.

[Maciamo]

Hi cstaylor !

I've checked the NY Times, but there are way too many articles about cloning to find the one about the primate cloning mistake. Do you still have the link ?

Nonetheless I've found an interesting article that confirms what I said about twins : http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Cloning-Twins.html

They're 10-year-old identical twins. So, just like a clone and its progenitor, they have identical genes.

They do look alike; even teachers mix them up. But Noel is about five pounds lighter than Holly. Noel has pierced ears; Holly isn't interested.

Noel is the more mechanically minded and ``definitely more of a go-getter,'' says their mother, Mary. Holly is ``more laid-back, she's more the peacemaker.''
[...]
But even identical twins are influenced by nongenetic factors -- starting with the womb and extending to parents, friends, opportunities in life, chance occurrences -- that influence who we are.

Since a clone and its progenitor would be born into different families at different times, these nongenetic factors could be expected to be more powerful.
[...]
Studies show that, in general, the correlation between identical twins is strong for height, less strong for IQ, lesser still for weight and then personality, Plomin said.

For all their differences, ``identical twins are more identical than clones will ever be''

Quite convincing. They also destroy the popular believe that cloning Michael Jordan or Mozart would make it possible to have a perfect basketball team or for Mozart's clone to continue his predecessor's work.

[Maciamo]

This FAQ is from the New Scientist
I've answered it for you without looking at what they wrote.

Is cloning "unnatural"?

Depends on your definition of natural. It surely isn't supernatural, as we can do it. It's man-made, but not less natural than taking medicines, having an organ-transplant or communicating by mobile phones (all these things aren't availble "naturally" without human intervention).

Is an identical twin essentially the same as a clone?

Yes. They are even more similar as they were born together. As they are usually also raised together, that makes them even more similar (education, nutrition, environment, family, school...). Look at the previous post.

Could some lunatic clone Hitler if human cloning were perfected?

Theu could, but that wouldn't mean anything. A clone of Hitler would have a compltely different personality as he would not have the same life at all. They have more chance to educate any child to become a nazi dictator than try the clone. Anyway, the society is different and nobody would listen to nazi propaganda (which furthermore is prohibited in most Western countries).

Would a clone have a soul?

Not more than anybody (I don't believe in the "soul" concept as an Atheist). Next question !

Could cloning be used to create "super warriors" or super-intelligent people?

Not cloning, but genetical engineering, yes. However it would require a lot more knowledge than we have now and children would need to develop their skills afterwards. As we saw with real twins, IQ or physical condition isn't very much genetical (just a bit). Any athlete would become a worm without training. Any gifted child a riff-raff without education (even autodidact).

Could cloning be used to save endangered species?

Yes ! That's why I am totally in favour of it. If we can preserve the DNA of each species (plant and animal), we are also able to recreate each of them at any time in the future if they become extinct (because today's society hasn't been able to protect them).

Could clones be "farmed" to provide spare body parts for their "parent" clone without problems of tissue rejection?

Organs or stem cells could be farmed without nervous system. It's one of the positive aspects of cloning as it will allow significant medical possibilities (cure and replace virtually anything in the body, even the neurons by implants, which could fight up aging and give us possibilities to live for several centuries). Who's still against ?
[/url]

[Taro Toporific]

The idea that someday a doctor could grow me a new organ is worth the moral qualms.

SIGN ME UP: I'm on the wait list for an extra "ORGAN" or three, kinkywise:lol:

The clone cult, Raelian freakozoids, count Japan for one third of their membership. Read more at:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/28/MN130207.DTL
http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/comment.cfm?id=1440682002
.

-----------------
5,4,3, 2, 1...Happy New Year!
Actually, it's still '02 here the Real World

[Maciamo]

Not surprising that Japanese make up a third of the sect. Almost all the Japanese I asked about aliens (maybe 20 people) said they believed in aliens and that they had seen UFO's. I like to ask questions like "what do aliens look like ?", "Are they friendly or not ?", "Why do they come to earth ?", "How can we communicate we they ? "Do they speak English or Japanese ?", etc. Of course, I always get totally different answers on the look, but most believe that they are friendly. Nobody knew why they came and they all looked confused about the communication problem. But they were sure, that if aliens came to earth, they'd land in Japan first. Of course, everybody on earth who claims having seen UFO's say that aliens would come to their country (and speak their language !). How primitive minds can be egocentric, that's amazing !

I don't discard the possibility that life exist outside the Earth (that has been proven in the form of cells as near as on Mars). The universe is so huge, there must be life somewhere (100% sure), but even if there was, they'd need to be advanced enough to travel through space, then find us, then reach us alive (it can takes thousands or millions of years from where they come from). Anyway, why would they come here and if they could, why would they hide or kidnapp people ? If they had come (recently), we would know it. Then what would they be up for ? Sightseeing ?

That's nteresting to see how human imagination about aliens grow in accordance with technological progress. 300 years ago, nobody would have thought about UFO's, because we hadn't invented airplanes and spaceships and nobody could conceive this would be possible one day. Now that genetics exist, we talk about aliens creating human DNA, cloning them and so on. Who is stupid enough to believe such primitive reasoning. Then what, we'll invent or discover new things and other child-like analogical brains will link this to aliens. Psychologically, it's very easy to understand what happens. New technologies and sciences are "futuristic" and "scif-fi". So if we make somthing new, it must be associated with "aliens" because they are seen as futuristic and "sci-fi". It's just the common imagination of people that is overworking.

[Taro Toporific]

Not surprising that Japanese make up a third of the sect.

Check out what Korea thinks...

Clone cult firm raided in S Korea

[cstaylor]

Here you go:

Experts Are Suspicious of Claim of Cloned Human's Birth

Dr. Jacques Cohen, the scientific director of assisted reproduction at St. Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., said he that if he did not know about the difficulty researchers had trying to clone monkeys, he would have thought that humans would be easy to clone because fertility experts have spent years perfecting techniques to handle human eggs in the laboratory and to grow human embryos for a few days in a lab. But the monkey work, he said, gave him pause.

Dr. Dominko, one of the principle researchers trying to clone monkeys, spent three years, and made more than 300 attempts, to no avail. Working at the Oregon Primate Research Center, at a well-financed laboratory, she and her colleagues never got a single pregnancy. Instead, the cloning efforts produced grotesquely abnormal embryos, some with cells with no chromosomes, some with multiple nuclei, including one cell had nine nuclei. She called the embryos her "gallery of horrors.

[cstaylor]

For some reason Materialism has a bad image among the masses.

For very good reasons (as the people I listed before were a plague on the 20th century)

However there are lots of famous and very honorable Materialists, starting from Democritus (460 - 370 BC). For example, D. Diderot, D. Hume, F. Nietsche, C.Darwin, J.P. Sarte... You could even add Spinoza (actually pantheist, but that's hardly a difference of vocabulary) and Bertrand Russel. Let's say there philosophy is not at all incompatible with mine.

Could you list for me a single materialist that has held power over others and has not committed some atrocity? Kant got it right over 300 years ago when he refuted the materialist notion that humans, like animals, can be a means to an end.

Let me state this clearly: if we choose to go down the road of reproductive human cloning, nothing but the complete debasement of humanity will come of it. You will have created an endless human resource, a second class of disposable humanity that will forever change the landscape of our world. In a future with reproductive cloning, the continuation of human life on this planet will be removed from the hands of individual people like you and me and placed squarely into the hands of those in power.

[Maciamo]

@cstaylor

I am no expert, and would also think first that cloning humans is more difficult than animals. However, scientists's opinions are divided. This article says that Cloning humans 'easier' than animals. It seemed that Scientists succeeded in cloning monkeys 3 years ago.

On the picture, the monkey looks perfectly normal (even cute ) and they didn't mentioned he/she died afterwards.

You really should find this article with all the horrible things you told me about. If it's the article where they say "Instead, the cloning efforts produced grotesquely abnormal embryos, some with cells with no chromosomes, some with multiple nuclei, including one cell had nine nuclei. She called the embryos her "gallery of horrors." I am not convinced, because an embryo always look monstruous. What's more they were very young embryo, so it's not more criminal than aborting a baby. Then, they talk about disformed cells ; that is very different from disformed bodies. If you are oversensitive, don't put your noses in everything that is medical or biological. It's the way life is.

[Maciamo]

Regardless of whether Eve really is a clone or not, there has been other stories of human cloning. I remember that Italian doctor named Severino Antinori who was working on his human clone too.

Earlier this year, Dr Antinori predicted that he would complete the first human cloning operation within 18 months.

That article is from August 2002, so his clone could be born in about one year's time. His claims are much more credible as he is already famous for enabling women in their 50s and 60s to give birth through in vitro fertilisation.

He shot to prominence in 1994 when he helped a 63-year-old woman to have a baby by implanting a donor's fertilised egg in her uterus, making her the oldest known women in the world to give birth.

Anyway. I also believe that human clones may have been secretly made. Scientists, knowing that the public opinion reaction could lead to a ban, kept it for them in order to continue their research. That's what I would do if I were them (but I am not ).

[cstaylor]

I am not convinced, because an embryo always look monstruous. What's more they were very young embryo, so it's not more criminal than aborting a baby.

Here you go: Cloned sheep Dolly has arthritis

Dolly the cloned sheep has arthritis according to one of the scientists involved in her creation.
Professor Ian Wilmut, a member of the team at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, said the condition may have arisen because of genetic defects caused by the cloning process.

If you are oversensitive, don't put your noses in everything that is medical or biological. It's the way life is.

::sigh:: Well, I guess you're right: there are enough people in scientific positions with your philisophical leanings that will push this through, whether its good for everyone or not, all the while claiming that its to help the tiny portion of the population that can't reproduce on their own, don't want a human surrogate mother, and can't imagine adopting a parentless child.

An important question: where is the money coming from that funds this expensive research and development? And I mean besides the wackos from Canada...

[Maciamo]

For some reason Materialism has a bad image among the masses.

For very good reasons (as the people I listed before were a plague on the 20th century)

They were not humanist. Materialsim is simply the opposite of spiritualism. If I may remind you Muslim terrorist were motivated by the opposite of materialism. Most wars in the history had religious roots : crusades, jihad, protestants VS catholics, inquisition, Spanish/Portuguese brutal colonization, all the problems in Israel and Middle East, etc. So we can't say one is better than the other. It's a bit like atheism vs theism (though not exactly the same). It depends more on the leader's personality than its beliefs. Once somebody wants war or power, he'll get it. If he is religious, he'll invoke religious reason, if he isn't he'll hind behind a ideology. Among the 4 people you cited, 3 were Communist, the other was Nazi. That's where lies the problem. Not all materialist or atheist are communist or nazi. Ironically, communism was invented by someone originally Jewish (Marx) and Nazism by a Christian (Hitler > if you've read Mein Kampf, you'll see that he refers a lot to Christian values).

As I said, the people who (re)invented democracy and the human rights were either atheist or "deist" (means that they believe in a creator God but not in religion because God has no contact with humans). The French Revolution was a revolution against the Church and its protectors (the king and nobility). All clericals were slaughtered and churches burn. That was called France's golden age and I fully agree. Notice that the Roman empire started to collapse once Christianity became official religion under Constantin. The Roman golden age (Caesar, August...) was when they crucified Christians and put them with th lions in the Colloseum.
Europe's "dark age" or "middle ages" was when the Church was all powerful, people believed in God and the Devil and went happily hack some infidel Moors in Holy Land.

I don't want to shock any Christians here, but it's time they face reality. Religion has always caused atrocious wars and still does more than anything else (Muslim terror, Bush's crusade, Hindu VS Muslim in India...).

The ideal regime is one where no single leader has all the power (even Bush or Chirac in France have too much). The government should bot be religious (it(s already the case in most of Europe, but politicians still have their beliefs that influence them). Last and not least, the government should be humanist and democratic (that means no extremist parties such as communism and nazism that want totalitarian power).

However there are lots of famous and very honorable Materialists, starting from Democritus (460 - 370 BC). For example, D. Diderot, D. Hume, F. Nietsche, C.Darwin, J.P. Sarte... You could even add Spinoza (actually pantheist, but that's hardly a difference of vocabulary) and Bertrand Russel. Let's say there philosophy is not at all incompatible with mine.

Could you list for me a single materialist that has held power over others and has not committed some atrocity? Kant got it right over 300 years ago when he refuted the materialist notion that humans, like animals, can be a means to an end.

Let me state this clearly: if we choose to go down the road of reproductive human cloning, nothing but the complete debasement of humanity will come of it. You will have created an endless human resource, a second class of disposable humanity that will forever change the landscape of our world. In a future with reproductive cloning, the continuation of human life on this planet will be removed from the hands of individual people like you and me and placed squarely into the hands of those in power.

Once again, you react like if you were living in a totalitarian country like the former USSR or China. In a democratic country (not sure that exist at the moment, maybe Switzerland, Luxembourg and other small European countries), politicians get their power from the people and lose it when they don't want then anymore. As simple as that. Then you should try to imagine (I know it's hard) what people would like to clone that might endanger human society. A clone is just a normal person. Education is dangerous if in the wrong hands and left unchecked (brainwashing, like in sects...), but not cloning.

It's impossible to create superhumans. We are not in "Dark Angel" ! People don't jump from the top of a building or over a 10m high fence even with good genetical dispositions. That's against the law of gravity, etc. Even a clone of Hitler would not become like him because he is not born at the same time and place. Have you read the NY Times artcile about twins ? No politician could change the face of the world without the support of its population. Even a despot. Despot usually end up assassinated if they haven't got support. In democratic societies (don't take China as an example), people would make revolution if the government was trying to become totalitarian. What can a few people do against masses of millions (with guns in the US) ?

[Maciamo]

Here you go: Cloned sheep Dolly has arthritis

Dolly the cloned sheep has arthritis according to one of the scientists involved in her creation.
Professor Ian Wilmut, a member of the team at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, said the condition may have arisen because of genetic defects caused by the cloning process.

If you are oversensitive, don't put your noses in everything that is medical or biological. It's the way life is.

I hope you are kidding ! Arthritis ! Lot's of people have that. And so what ? It's not even proven that it's for genetical reasons.

An important question: where is the money coming from that funds this expensive research and development? And I mean besides the wackos from Canada...

I don't care, most of the research is made in the US and I am not American. What's more if you live in Japan, that's not a problem for you either. I guess the US government spends much more money in defence and armement than in cloning. Which is better ? Sheep clones with arthritis at age 5 and a half (probably old for a ewe) isn't that bad...

[cstaylor]

Here you go:
All Clones Are Not the Same

As the controversy has heated up with the claim of the first human clone, the word cloning has come to mean, in the public's mind, the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer for artificial, asexual reproduction; to make a biologic copy of an existing organism. Scientists themselves often use the word "cloning" casually to refer to any use of somatic cell nuclear transfer. But elsewhere in science, cloning refers to outcome rather than process: it denotes replication of some biologic entity — perhaps an organism, but perhaps only one cell, or perhaps just a stretch of DNA. This reproduction might involve somatic cell nuclear transfer, or it might use some other technology.

[cstaylor]

I don't care, most of the research is made in the US and I am not American. hat's more if you live in Japan, that's not a problem for you either.

I'm sure there are plenty of French farmers that would disagree, and that they WILL face the effects of frankenfood in the future.

I guess the US government spends much more money in defence and armement than in cloning.

Don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.

Sheep clones with arthritis at age 5 and a half (probably old for a ewe) isn't that bad...

You still haven't answered my question about why we need reproductive cloning (other than the fallacious argument about people who don't want to adopt), nor what the effects of artificially produced humanity will be for everyone else. Do you really want to see the future of humanity taken out of our hands and given to scientists and politicians? Ever read Brave New World?

[cstaylor]

Once again, you react like if you were living in a totalitarian country like the former USSR or China.

Even in the democratic nations of Western Europe you have labor disputes. Now, with man-made humanity, who needs to argue with the disposessed: just replace them with clones.

In a democratic country (not sure that exist at the moment, maybe Switzerland, Luxembourg and other small European countries), politicians get their power from the people and lose it when they don't want then anymore.

And really, why are those countries "democracies"? Because the power lies within the people... but now with the ability to produce new people, why, who needs to listen to the old ones?

As simple as that. Then you should try to imagine (I know it's hard) what people would like to clone that might endanger human society.

Cheap workers. The last three hundred years has seen the slow unlifting of Man from slave classes to societies where their rights are (mostly) respected. How easily it would be to slide back down into the abyss!

A clone is just a normal person. Education is dangerous if in the wrong hands and left unchecked (brainwashing, like in sects...), but not cloning.

Well, I won't be alive to see the day when they mass produce clones (knock on wood), but I would think that if you could mass-produce people, brain-washing them as good little workers wouldn't be far off.

It's impossible to create superhumans.

I never said that, but since you brought up Sci-Fi, I seem to remember an episode or movie of Star Trek where the villan was a super-human clone... not sure about the title. I don't see how you can quickly assume that once you and others that agree with you force reproductive cloning through there won't be any "tinkering" with the code.

Even a clone of Hitler would not become like him because he is not born at the same time and place.

I never said that they would. You keep missing my point about mass-produced humanity. If you haven't read Brave New World (especially the part about the Epsilons), you should give it a go.

No politician could change the face of the world without the support of its population. Even a despot. Despot usually end up assassinated if they haven't got support.

In democratic societies (don't take China as an example), people would make revolution if the government was trying to become totalitarian.

There are plenty of counter-examples. Yes, countries like pre-revolution Russia and pre-Nazi Germany voted (or at least supported in some way) the initial stages of those systems, but once in power they made sure to change things so they would never be out of power.

[Maciamo]

I guess the US government spends much more money in defence and armement than in cloning.

Don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.

Which is more objectionable ? For me making war.

You still haven't answered my question about why we need reproductive cloning (other than the fallacious argument about people who don't want to adopt), nor what the effects of artificially produced humanity will be for everyone else. Do you really want to see the future of humanity taken out of our hands and given to scientists and politicians? Ever read Brave New World?

I understand that most people don't see the direct utility of cloning. Lot7s of people argue that there is no point going to Mars or, for Americans, to spend billions of $ in the so-called SETI program . Frankly, I long thought it was a joke. When I told non-Americans (Europeans, Japanese...) that Americans had a very serious Alien research programme financed by the government, they all laughed (ALL !). There are quantities of apparently useless ways of spending the tax-payers' money (in Japanese, it's building roads in the middle of nowhere and concrete all along the coast ). Cloning, if not people but just stem-cells, as at least the remarkable advantage of allowing medical care otherwise impossible such as replacing deffective organs (cancers, accidents...), repairing neurons for para/tetra/quadraplegic and people with brain diseases (Alzeihmer, Creuztfeld-Jacob, Parkinson...) and many more. If that is not useful, then what do you consider useful ?

We might not need baby clones (except for special cases like infertile parents) and I wouldn't care too much if cloning entire people was banned. What I see as absolutely necessary is the cloning of stem-cells. It's the greatest opportunity ever to cure any kind of disease or repair parts of the body. You clone the cells, you replace them and you are fresher than you could have hoped for. Isn't it wonderful ? The possibilities to "cure" ageing and live for centuries are also appreciable (for those who wish). I hope I answered your question.

[cstaylor]

Well, I did agree with that position in my first post:

stem cell cloning: good. Reproductive cloning: morally repugnant.

So we agree on that point. I just don't think we're ready yet for reproductive cloning.

[Maciamo]

Once again, you react like if you were living in a totalitarian country like the former USSR or China.

Even in the democratic nations of Western Europe you have labor disputes. Now, with man-made humanity, who needs to argue with the disposessed: just replace them with clones.

What make you believe that clones are dociles ? What make you believe that it is easier for a democratic government to kill (replace) people if clones can be made ? Don't forget that any clone whatsoever need the same time to grow and the same education as anybody to become an adult, docile or not (actually it's much more difficult to educate someone to be docile and what Japanese pride themselves for).

In a democratic country (not sure that exist at the moment, maybe Switzerland, Luxembourg and other small European countries), politicians get their power from the people and lose it when they don't want then anymore.

And really, why are those countries "democracies"? Because the power lies within the people... but now with the ability to produce new people, why, who needs to listen to the old ones?

It takes about 20 years for a human to reach adulthood. I think you watched too much Star Wars Episode 2. It's not possible to make a clone army that grow much faster than another human and doesn't need the same education. Even super-intelligent humans can't learn the necesary things of life in much less time than others. What is more, high-IQ people are much more independant minded and difficult to educate than anybody else because they can only learn by themselves (I have a strong interest on the issue and know quite a bit about it). On the other hand, retarded people won't learn anything with 3 times the time and effort given to an average person.

If you really think a government could secretly raise enough people to replace the present population (that still makes children), you are deep into sci-fi. Where would they get the food, clothes, space (accommodation, training site...) to raise millions of people during 20 years in the absolute secret. I know, the US haven't got a high population density, but this is purely impossible. First, nobody would have the budget to do it (even with 80% tax rate in a rich country).
Then, too many supervisors, trainers and staff would be needed, but these would be normal people like you and me who probably don't want to support such a mad project if they aren't mad themselves.
Thirdly, not even the most docile clone population would be emotion-free and they'll revolt if unhappy (unless they are robots, not life-beings,, but even animals would let themselves die if badly treated). Fourth, such a cloned population would not be productive. Nowadays, a machine works better and cheaper than any human. Too docile people have no creativity and can't develop arts, sciences, etc.
Fifth, what would be the purpose of governing a nation of identically boring people that you don't need to satisfy if it were possible ? It's like playing a video game in cheat-mode. Once you've finished it a few times, you are fed-up. What makes life interesting is challenge, excitement, adventure, change, progress... That's why overrich people (actually their children) commit suicide, because they've had everything they wanted and can't find any more enjoyment in life.
6th : you are going back to you totalitarian ideas of government. People wanting to eliminate their own population to replace them by identical clones are so monstruous (mass murder, freedom-destroying...) that nobody would let them do. What if tomorrow, the gov. decides to eliminate all American people in order to replace them by clones. How are they going to do ? Who is going to do the dirty job ? Who's going to feed them, built their house/palace, make their cars, etc. in the mean time ? How could they achieve their goal at 1 VS 1000000 ? Even if they could (and supposing no other gov. in the world intervenes) who would make their TV programs, films, the book they read, etc afterwards ? Identical clones ? How utterly boring ! No human will ever do such a thing, because they have nothing to gain from it.

As simple as that. Then you should try to imagine (I know it's hard) what people would like to clone that might endanger human society.

Cheap workers. The last three hundred years has seen the slow unlifting of Man from slave classes to societies where their rights are (mostly) respected. How easily it would be to slide back down into the abyss![/quote]

It's easier and cheaper to use machines. They work 24h, don't complain and don't get paid once you've got them. I think going backward would destroy any modern economies.

A clone is just a normal person. Education is dangerous if in the wrong hands and left unchecked (brainwashing, like in sects...), but not cloning.

Well, I won't be alive to see the day when they mass produce clones (knock on wood), but I would think that if you could mass-produce people, brain-washing them as good little workers wouldn't be far off.

Don't need to be mass-produced to be good little brain-washed workers. Japan did quite well after the war till recently. As the economy grow, less people are needed in the industry and more in services. The latter need a lot of education and a good mind. Identical clones wouldn't cope.

It's impossible to create superhumans.

I never said that, but since you brought up Sci-Fi, I seem to remember an episode or movie of Star Trek where the villan was a super-human clone... not sure about the title. I don't see how you can quickly assume that once you and others that agree with you force reproductive cloning through there won't be any "tinkering" with the code.

It was Star Trek, so sci-fi. Never believe what they say in movies an series. They are no scientists or specialists. They don't know what they talk about. The idea is to make people fantasize and scare them a little bit (what worked pretty well on you, if I ain't wrong ).

[Torigaa Fenikkusu]

I got a question about cloning. I've learned from 6th grade science, about genetics, about the probability of say hair color, eye color, or some genetic disease (e.g. Punnett Squares) because everyone has, say a small probability of contracting some genetic disease that runs in their family. Does the clone have a chance of contracting the genetic disease, or will it have it/not have it just like the original person/animal? I'm sorry if I sound stupid asking this, but I'm just wondering...