First Human Embryo Cloned!

[Rev7]

Sorry for the misunderstanding WR. I meant that I don't think that the embryo will last very long without a mother to support it while it is still developing into a baby. IMO.

[Ray Jones]

The keyword here is stem cell research, not giving birth to a child. However, in vitro fertilisation is nothing new to the world.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I was talking about this subject with someone that I know, and they actually said that it was for stem cell research and use. Not sure though....

Remodeled into blastosis, or the final stage of an embryo before it begins to turn into a fetus.

 

But, that's not the goal. Instead, Stemagen wants to use cloned embryos to make customized stem cells for medical treatments yet to be invented.

Yesh. Can't believe I missed that. Thanks, Rev.

[igyman]

Why is cloning against nature?? It is not. Basically, nature does the same when creating offspring. Also, clones are technically nothing negative, and are not going to kill us all just because they're clones. After all a human clone with human DNA *is* a human being. And human beings with human DNA behave exactly like human beings with human DNA.

 

At the end of the day it's all about how we treat them, how we deal with them, and what perspective we give them. If we're gonna make clones and throw them into a pit to sell them as slaves or something like that, the expected thing to happen sooner or later is told by human history already.

 

I think you said it best. I for one wholeheartedly support human cloning and am honestly glad that there has been some development in this field. Someone here mentioned the movie The Sixth Day as an argument against cloning. I think that regardless of how mistreated clones were in that movie we should also look at some interesting ideas that the movie gives us. Humans have always wanted to achieve immortality. Now, I realize that what I'm about to say is extreme science fiction, but remember that the main antagonist in The Sixth Day used cloning combined with microchip transmitter technology to make himself immortal in a way. OK, now an even more extreme example of science fiction is that TV show The First Wave, where the aliens transferred their consciousnesses from one body to the other. Imagine if one day our science and knowledge of the human brain could advance to such a level that we can effectively transfer our consciousness to another copy of our body before our current one dies. Extreme science fiction, I know, but still an interesting idea. Think about the medical uses at least - someone is dying from an inoperable tumor. You clone his body and transfer his consciousness, effectively saving his life.

[SilentScope001]

Yesh. Can't believe I missed that. Thanks, Rev.

 

Ouch. Yeah, can't believe I missed it too. Believed in the hype.

 

...extreme science fiction...

 

igyman, I suggested such a technology as a method to allow for the moral use of the death penatly. "Let revoke death!"

 

Discussion however, turned quickly against the idea, despite convicing an anti-'death penatly' advocate that the idea has merit.

 

Dagobhan Eagle claims that the first person who is died would STILL BE DEAD. It's not the memories that makes the person but also the body itself. I responded, and DE replied back, andI made a final attempt.

 

Samuel Dravis then talked about how effective the 'punishment' actually would be, and I suggested that there will be a limited amount of clones a person can have, meaning that a person must pay for more clones, and the fines necessary to stay alive would act as a sufficent deterrent. Oh, and memory of the actual death itself, that would scar the person as well.

 

What's your view, igyman? Would clone immortality allow for the use of the death penatly, even for minor offenses, since death can easily be 'reverted' and a person can still live? Would clone immortality actually work, or...would the idea of 'souls' that makes a person who he is, not his memories, that matters? Strangely enough, I encountered a person who does not believe in religion at all, but instead believe in souls, and that souls are what makes a person.

[Samuel Dravis]

Silentscope, you might find this an interesting read. I recommend you pick up the book and read the actual story, but the summary is fairly good.

[Salzella]

I don't know what to think about clones. They are obviously medically incredibly useful in terms of stem cells etc., and all the logical arguments for are pretty convincing, but I doubt I'm the only one who would be a wee bit uncomfortable with my genetic copy being out there somewhere. Typically woolly 'against' argument, but hey.

[Rev7]

Yesh. Can't believe I missed that. Thanks, Rev.

Ouch. Yeah, can't believe I missed it too. Believed in the hype.

 

Your welcome. Knowing that it was for stem cell research answered a lot of questions.

[Web Rider]

Your welcome. Knowing that it was for stem cell research answered a lot of questions.

 

For this specific debate I suppose, but we're all well aware the next step is a full-grown human.

 

As for your mention about a mother, do you mean the gestation period? I suppose designing an artificial womb is on the list somewhere.

[igyman]

What's your view, igyman? Would clone immortality allow for the use of the death penatly, even for minor offenses, since death can easily be 'reverted' and a person can still live?

First of all, I have to say that I don't support the death penalty. I think that by thinking we have the right to take a life of even the worst of offenders makes us no better than said offender.

Now, from a technical point of view I guess the "pseudo death penalty" could work, but it would be an extremely barbaric method of punishment in my opinion, regardless of the ability to "bring that person back", because the point of that sort of penalty would be the memory of that feeling when you die, not death itself.

 

Would clone immortality actually work, or...would the idea of 'souls' that makes a person who he is, not his memories, that matters? Strangely enough, I encountered a person who does not believe in religion at all, but instead believe in souls, and that souls are what makes a person.

Like I said above, it's a very interesting idea (at least to me), but it's still only science fiction. If it would ever be possible to avoid death by means I described above, in order to avoid all the negative repercussions you mentioned in your post, humanity would need to evolve a lot more when it comes to our nature. If we could learn to become less selfish and think of the human race as a whole, instead of just looking after our own rear ends (something along the lines of Star Trek's humanity), I suppose we could function as a society with that kind of immortality.

As for the second part of the question - I don't believe in souls, but I do believe that we are all unique in personality and I accept the psychological explanations as to how that personality is formed during our childhood as the most plausible and rational ones.

[Rev7]

As for your mention about a mother, do you mean the gestation period? I suppose designing an artificial womb is on the list somewhere.

I was refering to the gestational period, I just couldn't remember the word.

I myself, don't think that an 'artificial womb' would be able to support a baby. I may be wrong, but that doesn't seem to add up in my brain.

[Web Rider]

I was refering to the gestational period, I just couldn't remember the word.

I myself, don't think that an 'artificial womb' would be able to support a baby. I may be wrong, but that doesn't seem to add up in my brain.

 

I think it could, I think it's just a lot more complicated than it first sounds. Oh artificial womb, no big deal right? wrong.

[Rev7]

Exactly, I think that it could take a lot of money, and time to do something like that. As far as I can see, an artificial womb really ( give or take some women who want a 'new' womb, meaning that it was taken out) would only be made for this one purpose. Cloning. I think that something that holds life should have to be flawless (of course that is not possible...). It is really a complex thing if you ask me.

[Web Rider]

Exactly, I think that it could take a lot of money, and time to do something like that. As far as I can see, an artificial womb really ( give or take some women who want a 'new' womb, meaning that it was taken out) would only be made for this one purpose. Cloning. I think that something that holds life should have to be flawless (of course that is not possible...). It is really a complex thing if you ask me.

 

I don't really think it would only be for cloning, I think it could also be used for women who are infertile, ie: they wouldn't need another woman to birth their child. Though I see the problem being dehumanizing humans to the point were we DO get the whole cloned army stuff and second-class "clone" citizens who are less because they were born in a machine vs a woman.

[Ray Jones]

Samuel Dravis then talked about how effective the 'punishment' actually would be, and I suggested that there will be a limited amount of clones a person can have, meaning that a person must pay for more clones, and the fines necessary to stay alive would act as a sufficent deterrent. Oh, and memory of the actual death itself, that would scar the person as well.

I think death penalty and cloning are of somewhat exclusive nature against each other. Also, simple cloning is by no means able to produce a cc of the cloned individual. I mean, the clone still has to grow and all that stuff, that takes a long while, as we all might have noticed. Also, to create a handful of clones with every embryo that has just been developed sounds not very useful and would, at the end of the day have no point. And seriously, taking DNA out of a newly developed embryo does not sound too clever either.

 

The whole idea of "clone punishment" is utterly stupid, naive and useless.

 

 

Would clone immortality actually work, or...would the idea of 'souls' that makes a person who he is, not his memories, that matters?

Ever thought that souls also might be connected to a persons memory? Plus, like I've said before, cloning is not able to make a perfect copy of anything else than a given DNA, let alone the fact that this DNA might have been already taken damage or whatever due to external factors. The clone is only a genetic twin of the cloned person at best. Cloning of complete individuals does not work to achieve "immortality". Cloning single cells and replacing them sounds like the better approach for that.

 

However, building exact copies of cells using nano-technology should beat cloning by lengths anyway. That could also enable us to cc of any human as is sooner or later.

 

 

Strangely enough, I encountered a person who does not believe in religion at all, but instead believe in souls, and that souls are what makes a person.

Indeed, very strange. How many religions propagate the idea of souls?