Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · Aug 7, 2004, 09:24 AM

What do you think of this?

What's next?

amsalpemkcus · Aug 7, 2004, 09:30 AM

lets see how long those kittens live and how they die. i guess being humans we will have to try anything that is out there before we can see for ourselves that there are issues that make it not such a good idea. I like the stem cells idea though for replacing damaged tissue/organ etc.

OSX Abuser · Aug 7, 2004, 10:44 AM

Will they die early like that Sheep or Cow did??

gorickey · Aug 7, 2004, 11:25 AM

Carbon Copy Cloner is awesome indeed...

Tulkas · Aug 7, 2004, 11:41 AM

The simple answer is we don't need clones, just then stem cell thingies. And even with that we're much farther from being able to grow tissue than you'd think.

Cody Dawg · Aug 7, 2004, 11:49 AM

I just don't understand the point of it. I mean, it's all Dr. Frankenstein-ish.

How many mutants were produced and died or were killed off in the process?

CD Hanks · Aug 7, 2004, 11:59 AM

Cloning pets, I'm okay with.

Cloning humans = a world of headaches. Outright cloning of a human being should be done in a lab setting to be able to document the process for further understanding, and then promptly outlawed. Said testing should also never be made public.

Cloning/harvesting organs for transplants and other noble medical efforts in humans, I'm just dandy with.

Lateralus · Aug 7, 2004, 12:26 PM

Cloning cats... yeah.. awesome... anyways...

When will they be able to clone hot dogs! What's taking so long!

The Godfather · Aug 7, 2004, 01:15 PM

Why do Arnold Schwarzenegger movies always come true?

gorickey · Aug 7, 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by The Godfather:
Why do Arnold Schwarzenegger movies always come true?

You mean Danny Devito really is his twin?

Tulkas · Aug 7, 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:

Cloning/harvesting organs for transplants and other noble medical efforts in humans, I'm just dandy with.

Isn't that a bit unethical to clone a person and then just rip out their organs without consent? Unless you meant doing this artificially.

CD Hanks · Aug 7, 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Isn't that a bit unethical to clone a person and then just rip out their organs without consent? Unless you meant doing this artificially.

That is, in fact, what I meant.

philzilla · Aug 7, 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Cloning pets, I'm okay with.

Cloning humans = a world of headaches. Outright cloning of a human being should be done in a lab setting to be able to document the process for further understanding, and then promptly outlawed. Said testing should also never be made public.

Cloning/harvesting organs for transplants and other noble medical efforts in humans, I'm just dandy with.

the day they clone you, is the day i kill myself.

CD Hanks · Aug 7, 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by philzilla:
the day they clone you, is the day i kill myself.

Look directly behind you.

philzilla · Aug 7, 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Look directly behind you.

that sounds like something the canadian wants to say to you.

CD Hanks · Aug 7, 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by philzilla:
that sounds like something the canadian wants to say to you.

Touche. He'd probably be first in line to get a clone of me. Then you. Then Zim.

philzilla · Aug 7, 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Touche. He'd probably be first in line to get a clone of me. Then you. Then Zim.

zim just needs some video of you, which he'll project onto his bedroom wall.

now he'll post that stupid fanboy graphic, because he thinks he's cool.

Spheric Harlot · Aug 7, 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by philzilla:
zim just needs some video of you, which he'll project onto his bedroom wall.

now he'll post that stupid fanboy graphic, because he thinks he's cool.

LOL!

Yep - fans put heroes on ignore.

Tulkas · Aug 7, 2004, 03:41 PM

I'm sorry, but if anyone on MacNN gets cloned I'm going to have to go on one hell of a kill spree.

xenu · Aug 7, 2004, 04:36 PM

What's wrong with cloning?

How many mistakes were made with IVF before they got it right? Or any other field of medicine/engineering/chemistry/... ?

If people want to clone their pets, or themselves, who are you/we to say no?

CD Hanks · Aug 7, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by xenu:
If people want to clone their pets, or themselves, who are you/we to say no?

While at face value, there doesn't seem to be much of an issue, there are extremely big legal and ethical issues.

Imagine a clone killing the original person, assuming the identity, and no one is the wiser. Now multiply that by a few thousand times, and add all sorts of different variables, and you've got a gigantic headache.

Tulkas · Aug 7, 2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by xenu:
What's wrong with cloning?

How many mistakes were made with IVF before they got it right? Or any other field of medicine/engineering/chemistry/... ?

If people want to clone their pets, or themselves, who are you/we to say no?

Well, its harmful and has a high potential of being exploited.

amsalpemkcus · Aug 7, 2004, 04:49 PM

the day cloning humans becomes mainstream..sex will become a commodity that you can buy using your remote. this may just as well happen after which we will realize how stupid we are!

demograph68 · Aug 7, 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by amsalpemkcus:
sex will become a commodity that you can buy using your remote

Holographic porn! Sweet!!!!

capuchin · Aug 7, 2004, 05:46 PM

I think I'd like to have a couple dozen of me running around in some healthy, enclosed environment. Thus, when my pancreas explodes from drug/alcohol abuse, I can just cap a clone and swipe his.

Better yet, clone a few thousand of yourself, but tinker with 'em to make them different sizes, and put them wild on an island off Puerto Rico. Voila! Jurassic Park with people.

amsalpemkcus · Aug 7, 2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by capuchin:
I think I'd like to have a couple dozen of me running around in some healthy, enclosed environment. Thus, when my pancreas explodes from drug/alcohol abuse, I can just cap a clone and swipe his.

Better yet, clone a few thousand of yourself, but tinker with 'em to make them different sizes, and put them wild on an island off Puerto Rico. Voila! Jurassic Park with people.

Here is one of your own!

what!? they didnt tell you about the experiments they have already tried using you?

CreepingDeth · Aug 7, 2004, 06:18 PM

I don't think cloning is good. If we were to create stuff other than babies, God would have made us to do that. I also hate the use of babies for stem cell research. Same goes for abortion: people sell baby body parts. Ew.
Why would you clone a pet? They should invent toys. They should invent the frisbee.

Dale Sorel · Aug 7, 2004, 06:27 PM

For anyone who hasn't seen it, go rent The Fly from 1986 to see what can happen when you start playing with genetics

CreepingDeth · Aug 7, 2004, 06:30 PM

Wasn't the guy from JPII in that movie, who went on to do Apple commercials?
I saw a little. It was very weird. Changing living animals is stupid.

xenu · Aug 7, 2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
While at face value, there doesn't seem to be much of an issue, there are extremely big legal and ethical issues.

Imagine a clone killing the original person, assuming the identity, and no one is the wiser. Now multiply that by a few thousand times, and add all sorts of different variables, and you've got a gigantic headache.

If I tried to take somones identity, over the internet say, I would be found out in a very short time.

How can a clone possibly know, behave, talk, ... in such way as to fool anyone? Pure speculation.

xenu · Aug 7, 2004, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Well, its harmful and has a high potential of being exploited.

As are some over the counter drugs, or advertising during childrens tv.

xenu · 07:02 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I don't think cloning is good. If we were to create stuff other than babies, God would have made us to do that. I also hate the use of babies for stem cell research. Same goes for abortion: people sell baby body parts. Ew.
Why would you clone a pet? They should invent toys. They should invent the frisbee.

How do you know your god didn't give us brains to clone ourselves?
I didn't know they used babies for stem cell research. I thought they used stem cells from embryos, as well as adults.

xenu · Aug 7, 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
For anyone who hasn't seen it, go rent The Fly from 1986 to see what can happen when you start playing with genetics

Yeah, all first year science students should see this movie, and Aliens III, and 'Star wars II'.
They could be the basis of an ethics course, so those wacky proto-madscientists will know that they will end up dying in very nasty ways should they mess with nature.

CreepingDeth · Aug 7, 2004, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by xenu:
How do you know your god didn't give us brains to clone ourselves?
I didn't know they used babies for stem cell research. I thought they used stem cells from embryos, as well as adults.

I believe life starts at conception, so I really don't care how old the baby is, it's still a life.

If we ere meant to be cloned, why would it take us thousands of years to achieve the science of it? Why do we need to clone ourselves anyway? 1 me is enough. My clone might go out and start listening to pop music, so would I really want that?

xenu · Aug 7, 2004, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I believe life starts at conception, so I really don't care how old the baby is, it's still a life.

If we ere meant to be cloned, why would it take us thousands of years to achieve the science of it? Why do we need to clone ourselves anyway? 1 me is enough. My clone might go out and start listening to pop music, so would I really want that?

Are adult stem cells are bad too? Because no matter how old the adult is, it's still a life.

If we were meant to travel fast through the air, why did it take so long to build jets? Should we ban flying because it took so long to develop the technology to do so?

It is not normal for extremely premature babies to live. Should we cease intervention? After all, it took thousands of years to figure out how to achieve the science of it.

I guess the solution to your personal moral problem is ...
1. Don't use any medical technology derived from embryonic stem cells and,
2. Don't clone yourself, and
3. If you do clone yourself, have a strict curfew.

CreepingDeth · Aug 7, 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by xenu:
Are adult stem cells are bad too? Because no matter how old the adult is, it's still a life.

If we were meant to travel fast through the air, why did it take so long to build jets? Should we ban flying because it took so long to develop the technology to do so?

It is not normal for extremely premature babies to live. Should we cease intervention? After all, it took thousands of years to figure out how to achieve the science of it.

I guess the solution to your personal moral problem is ...
1. Don't use any medical technology derived from embryonic stem cells and,
2. Don't clone yourself, and
3. If you do clone yourself, have a strict curfew.

So messing with human life is the equivalent of flying. Cloning is bad tech. And no, I guess it is fine for adult to do it, but using someone besides you is wrong, where they have no knowledge of it.

xenu · Aug 7, 2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
So messing with human life is the equivalent of flying. Cloning is bad tech. And no, I guess it is fine for adult to do it, but using someone besides you is wrong, where they have no knowledge of it.

The basis of your argument was 'if we were meant to do it, it would have happened thousands of years ago".

Tell you what, as soon as an embryo says that we cannot use their stem cells, I'll agree we shouldn't.

CreepingDeth · Aug 7, 2004, 07:49 PM

Then lets go destroy them all.

My argument is that we weren't meant to mess with the process of life creation.

xenu · 08:14 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Then lets go destroy them all.
My argument is that we weren't meant to mess with the process of life creation.

Destroy who all?

Who says we shouldn't mess with life creation?

We already do - through IVF. Should we stop freezing eggs and sperm for later use? Should we stop screening embryos? Will you tell a parent they must carry their baby to term, even though it doesn't have a brain, and will die within hours of birth?

Would you prefer a child die, or have a 'designer' sibling so they can live? Will you explain why they cannot? Will you explain to the child that they must die because of your beliefs?

We are going slightly off the cloning issue here, although it's all still interesting.

demograph68 · Aug 7, 2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Then lets go destroy them all.
My argument is that we weren't meant to mess with the process of life creation.

That would apply to other things like heart bypass or organ transplants, right? God had no intention of us meddling with our guts. It must be stopped!!!

ambush · Aug 7, 2004, 08:11 PM

it has a lot of good to it.

but in this world of corruption, it would be very bad, no doubt.

CreepingDeth · Aug 7, 2004, 08:17 PM

People choose to donate organs. Babies get aborted without anything, treated like a disposable Tupperware container. I said the CREATION of life.

xenu · Aug 7, 2004, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
People choose to donate organs. Babies get aborted without anything, treated like a disposable Tupperware container. I said the CREATION of life.

So did I.

You have yet to justify that statement.

You also need to visit a few old folks homes. Disposable indeed.

amsalpemkcus · Aug 7, 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Then lets go destroy them all.
My argument is that we weren't meant to mess with the process of life creation.

I think humans made gods and now humans want a way to renew themselves. If we could evolve to eventually think of how to clone ourselves then it will be so. Although, I think it is more difficult and unpredictable to control the outcome of it due to inherent complexity and we will just come to terms with it as a limited thing one can do to improve quality of life, perhaps. On the long run this approach of reproducing ourselves I dont think will make us any stronger than the present method of reproducing.

demograph68 · Aug 7, 2004, 09:35 PM

Genetics research gives us the choice whether or not to bring a fetus with certain qualities-Down's syndrome, cerebral palsy- into the world. Many people fear the implications of this ability. They argue, shouldn't God and nature decide these things? But medical advances have all but reversed natural selection in the human species, as inherited traits that would have led to death or at least fewer offspring in the wild can now be offset with technology, thus weakening the gene pool. Natural selection is no longer allowed to improve the genetic qualities of the human species. What's so wrong, then, with bringing natural selection into the realm of conscious control? We fear what we would choose. We fear that we can choose.

- Douglas Rushkoff "Playing the Future"

macaddict0001 · Aug 7, 2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Then lets go destroy them all.
My argument is that we weren't meant to mess with the process of life creation.

heck a condom messes with the process of life creation but you aren't against that, are you?

demograph68 · Aug 8, 2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
heck a condom messes with the process of life creation but you aren't against that, are you?

He's probably fine with a guy using a condom, just not a woman using birth control. It's immoral.

Tulkas · Aug 8, 2004, 01:33 AM

Ugh, cloning people is a bad idea. Also almost impossible.

Cloning for stem cells is fine. We aren't really creating anything sentient at all.

xenu · Aug 8, 2004, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Ugh, cloning people is a bad idea. Also almost impossible.

Cloning for stem cells is fine. We aren't really creating anything sentient at all.

Why is it a bad idea? Why shouldn't we create sentient life, if it is within our ability to do so? Don't we owe it to 'them' to do so?

demograph68 · Aug 8, 2004, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by xenu:
Why is it a bad idea? Why shouldn't we create sentient life, if it is within our ability to do so? Don't we owe it to 'them' to do so?

Reverse psychology?