[BlackGriffen]

Love it? Hate it? Want a "minnie me?" Think it's an abomination in the eyes of god? Vent your thoughts here. I, as always, have my own opinions, but I always try to listen before I speak.

Have at it!

BlackGriffen

[Justin W. Williams]

Pets = ok

Humans != ok.

If i could, i'd pay any amount of money to have my dog live forever, but I think it would be totally wrong to do the same thing with a human.

[djkimothy]

shouldn't happen.

djk

[wataru]

My biggest problem with it (and cloning pets) is that there really isn't a good reason to do it.

I'd love to hear of some usefull applications of cloned humans that didn't violate the rights of the clone (like using clones as organ banks).

Cloning pets is stupid. It's for rich people who don't want to deal with loss. Just get a new f*cking dog. There are plenty to go around. Too many, in fact, to justify cloning pets.

[jcadam]

normally, I'm a pretty conservative guy. My feelings on this are a little different from others I know.

Cloning complete humans and using them as organ banks would be wrong obviously.

I've heard talk of using human cloning technology to 'grow' individual replacement organs.
This would be awesome. As soon as one of your organs/body parts starts to show signs of wear & tear, just replace the sucker.
I'll take a few extra decades of life, thank you.

I don't believe any technology is 100% evil. Cloning can be used for good or evil, and I don't think we should eliminate it completely because the potential for evil exists.

I know a lot of people that quickly jumped on the cloning==satan
bandwagon as soon as a popular religious leader told them to. Oh well, I suppose behaving that way saves you from actually having to think and drawing your own conclusions.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by wataru:
<STRONG>My biggest problem with it (and cloning pets) is that there really isn't a good reason to do it.

I'd love to hear of some usefull applications of cloned humans that didn't violate the rights of the clone (like using clones as organ banks).

Cloning pets is stupid. It's for rich people who don't want to deal with loss. Just get a new f*cking dog. There are plenty to go around. Too many, in fact, to justify cloning pets.</STRONG>

Would you be against growing a liver, instead of growing a full clone?

More importantly, is it even possible to clone someone? At best, what we call clones, are identical twins born many years apart. Even identical twins are not identical, however, just ask some twins. In order to make a true clone, you would need to clone the DNA and the mind. The only way I see this working is if: one, cybernetics advances far enough to program a brain; two, a teleportation technology like in Star Trek where they simply copy the original without destroying it.

My biggest issue with "twinning" is this: it is basically asexual reproduction. The most advanced species I know of that is capable of this is a specie of gecko. Even then, every species down to worms, coral and such are capable of sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is not a valid strategy, or life would have never abandoned it since it is so much easier. Just like immortality, it sounds like it may be a good idea, but life actually abandoned it (single celled organisms are effectively immortal, because they don't need to die for genetic changes to be effective) To those who claim to need twinning to have a baby I respond: wait for science to fix your problem properly, because your little twin will probably have the same problem. Even those who would want to "clone" an Einstein: remember, a twin is not a clone, and we're making twins.

BlackGriffen

[fobside]

here are some things ive thought about.

lets assume that humans have souls. when you clone a human, does this human have a soul? is the soul identical to the person you cloned?

i dont personally think that even if you can create an identical body, you can not create a soul or a personality...whatever you would like to call it. although i could foresee someone trying to clone an army as a problem, the general idea of cloning doesnt seem like a problem for me.

[wataru]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
<STRONG>Would you be against growing a liver, instead of growing a full clone?</STRONG>

I would be very cool with growing organs. I think that's a great idea.

Souls: I don't think they exist, so no problem there (for me, anyway).

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: wataru ]

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by wataru:
<STRONG>

I would be very cool with growing organs. I think that's a great idea.

</STRONG>

A thought just occurred to me concerning the comment I made about livers: we already do that. The liver is a really cool organ: you can lose most of it, and it can grow back. IIRC, some doctors have figured out a way to transplant part of a liver, effectively cloning it. My source for it already being done isn't reliable (rumor, really), but it sounds plausible. I just mention it because it just occurred to me that this is an example of cloning an organ (though it is less than ideal since a transplanted liver has the classic immune system problems).

Griff

[Ozmodiar]

You know, cloning your dead dog isn't going to bring it back. Not only will it act almost nothing like your original dog, it may not even look like it. Personality and coat are environmental factors.

The same thing with cloning Hitler. In that case it would look like him, but he most likely wouldn't be a diabolical warmonger.

[Adam Betts]

If we are able to clone a human, it would prove that there are no such thing like soul.

That's why religions got so pissed off that they are planning to clone some people

[shanraghan]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
<STRONG>If we are able to clone a human, it would prove that there are no such thing like soul.
</STRONG>

That would depend upon your definition of 'soul'. If you insist that it is something that must be imbued from an external source, then your argument might have some merit. If you simply define 'soul' as something intrinsic to the human being, then very little can disprove it. As I see it, a clone would have a soul, so long as it is alive and intelligent, as I make no distinction between the soul and the heart, a blurry, if any distinction between the soul and the mind, and find it synonymous with ourselves as a whole.

[fobside]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
<STRONG>If we are able to clone a human, it would prove that there are no such thing like soul.

That's why religions got so pissed off that they are planning to clone some people</STRONG>

some people would argue that every cloned person would be like a newborn and have its own soul. that wouldnt really disprove anything since a soul is not something tangible we can measure in any way.

[olePigeon]

I think the biggest problem with cloning is the possability of having Kevin Costner films for the next 25,000 years.

[Cipher13]

To those bringing 'souls' into this - tell me, whats the difference between external, medically assissted fertilisation, natural internal fertilisation, and cloning? Yeah, precisely. Only the process. So what?

I have strong opinions on this, because it is the area which I'm majoring in, and have wanted to since I discovered it; genetics.

I believe cloning to any extent is perfectly okay, morally. And I have very strong morals.

Cloning a person is out of the question. The mind cannot be cloned right now; and that's the only thing that could cause a fuss. The mind, soul, whatever you want to call it, is what differentiates us.

The body is just a vessel, right Christians? So how can you have a problem cloning the 'mere vessel' in which our soul is housed?

If you have a problem with cloning, then you must have a problem with twins too.

The thing is this; if you were to take a sample of DNA, and grow a child from that sample, while the DNA will be identical (well, not quite) to that of the 'source', and while physical traits coded for by the DNA would be at least similar, what defines a person is not carried in the DNA. Why do you think at such young ages we're completely useless beings? We're being initialised for later on. Learning.

Environmental affectors are what make us who we are. Our experiences. The thought processes we have run through. Our trials and tribulations; our joys and raptures. Pain, pleasure, friends, family define who we are. Not some silly sequence of A's, C's, T's and G's.

Anyone who believes DNA defines us has a major problem - we're all made up of that. So are we all the same? Ahh, different arrangements, you say... to that, I say, so what? Again, do you hate twins? No? Then you can't hate clones.

Mind you, I'm talking about a full-blown clone here. Not just cloning organs in giant vats. That's cool too. Anyone with probs with that is just dumb.

I think the only concern with cloning is the fact that clones would be treated differently if they were exposed; it'd be a horrendous situation, due to so many ignorant people out there casting stones.

That... and the fear that people would see them as 'sub human', and fit for experiments, slaves, and for organ-harvesting, and so forth.

That is awfully wrong.

A clone, while similar in body, is not the person it was derived from, in the mind.

Fear of military applications? Well, *IF* one day it became possible to clone somebody and accelerate their growth, WITH subliminal programming (which is already possible, but hardly efficient - but in time, if the mind could be copied, then that's what I'm talking about), anybody could be wiped out and replaced with a clone. Paranoia? You'll see.

I just think anyone argueing that cloning is morally wrong is jumping to conclusions without the scientific knowledge, or consideration that the subject NEEDS applied to it. You can't just have an opinion on this; you have to think it through, and know what you're talking about, for it to be valid. A rare case indeed.

[Xaositect]

Another wrinkle to the arguement...

Someone take a sample of my genetic material, makes a physical duplicate of me, and has it commit crimes, go into massive debt (to pay for itself) and ruin my reputation. It doesn't need to have my mind to do that.

Yea, not feasible to do to me, but imagine politics after this!

That being said, I still want the research done. Not only might we get custom grown organ replacement, but it's also the only way to get the tech to uncover shenanigans like that mentioned above, and now that the cat is out of the bag...

Other benefits:
preventative medicine for problems you haven't developed yet, possible filtering out of nasty genetic problems, longer and healthier lives.

Other detriments:
Over-tailoring offspring reducing diversity, filtering out potentially neccessary genetic variations, denied health care due to genetic makeup.

Where to draw the lines? the debate continues...

[jholmes]

Isn't this whole debate a little premature? I mean the clone don't attack for a another couple of weeks

Seriously, I mean we don't know what will happen yet do we? Will a cloned human be just like a twin? or a an exact copy? or more of an invitro pregnancy? WIll those same genes render a copy that is the original, only a generation later? or will environemental changes make the clone and comletely different person?

In short, who knows without the research and now they want to ban the research. If clones are outlawed then only outlaws will make clones - or something like that.

But they will be created no matter what governmental authority says.

[ringo]

You are not your clone. The bugger may look like you, but will be significantly younger (duh) and have it's own personality based on the environment it grew up in.

I think that certain tendencies may be hard-wired geneticly, but that environment is a stronger factor in the development of a human. That Hitler clone may rid the world of cancer while the Ghandi clone goes on a genocidal rampage.

If we do have a soul (something I'm unconvinced of, but that's for another thread), then I'm sure the creator has enough to go around for your clone to have one of it's very own. I never hear twins argueing about who gets to keep their soul this weekend, so I doubt this will be an issue.

I don't see how cloning is any more un-natural than the types of things people do in fertilization clinics already.

[seanyepez]

We can discuss whether cloning is right or wrong until we're blue in the face. The question is, why would cloning be helpful if we're not going to use it to harvest organs or genetically engineer ourselves.

[KellyHogan]

Cloning?

[KellyHogan]

Cloning?

[KellyHogan]

Cloning?

[Sock Puppet Theater]

somebody please, think of the kittens!!!

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by Cipher13 (in the Time Machine thread):
Any person smart enough to do it, is hopefully wise enough not to.

I am curious as to why Time Travel is not wise but Cloning is?

[beb]

I would like to clone some swimsuit models for personal reasons.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
<STRONG>

I am curious as to why Time Travel is not wise but Cloning is? </STRONG>

I didn't say cloning was 'wise', specifically, but it isn't unwise (I know that sounds contradictory, but you know what I mean); and it has a MUCH lower potential for abuse, doesn't it?

I don't see how you can even compare 4th-dimensional manipulation to what is as natural as having sex. Genetic replication is carried out by the same process regardless of whether two gametes meet in a tank (natural or artificial), or whether a fertilised cell is just 'grown'.

[l'ignorante]

Anybody remember the movie 'boys from Brasil'...

As for technical developments, I can't wait till we finally get digital copies of oneself that can be send through modem like devices and materialise (much like Star Trek) elsewhere.

[fobside]

Originally posted by l'ignorante:
<STRONG>As for technical developments, I can't wait till we finally get digital copies of oneself that can be send through modem like devices and materialise (much like Star Trek) elsewhere.</STRONG>

i actually discussed this with my friends one time. teleportation is turning yourself into energy and then reassembling yourself back together at your destination. what if someone intercepts you or tricks you into coming to their location and they stick you in a battery? i could see people stealing people and using them as power.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Cipher13:
I didn't say cloning was 'wise', specifically, but it isn't unwise (I know that sounds contradictory, but you know what I mean); and it has a MUCH lower potential for abuse, doesn't it?

Seeing as cloning is happening and time travel is not, I'd say the reverse is true as of right now.

I don't see how you can even compare 4th-dimensional manipulation to what is as natural as having sex. Genetic replication is carried out by the same process regardless of whether two gametes meet in a tank (natural or artificial), or whether a fertilised cell is just 'grown'.

Well, this depends upon one's definition of "natural" and much else in your statement. I'd never say that cloning is "as natural as having sex."

All natural sexual procreation that I am aware of involves the blending of DNA from unidentical sexual sources. Invitro fertilization as is presently practiced for couples unable to otherwise conceive is hence natural, although it involves a high degree of technical manipulation.

That cloning or "genetic replication is carried out by the same process" strikes me as lacking in common sense, human decency, or wisdom.

But as someone who admits that you will be majoring in genetics and you have strong opinions on this, it is no wonder that you seem to see only favorable results from your (or any others) future genetic career endeavors. A wise man would warn to watch out for hubris. But experience seems to work best.

Take it from Dr. Erwin Chargaff, one of the fathers of nucleic acid and gene research: "Our time is cursed with the necessity for feeble men, masquerading as experts, to make enormously far-reaching decicions. Is there anyhting more far-reaching than the creation of new forms of life?... You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosols; you may even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you can not recall a new form of life... The hybridization of Prometheus with Herostratus is bound to give evil results... This world is given to us on loan. We come and we go; and after a time we leave earth and air and water to others who come after us. My generation, or perhaps the one preceeding mine, has been the first to engage, under the leadership of the exact scinces, in a destructive colonial warfare against nature. The future will curse us for it."

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
<STRONG>Seeing as cloning is happening and time travel is not, I'd say the reverse is true as of right now

Well, this depends upon one's definition of "natural" and much else in your statement. I'd never say that cloning is "as natural as having sex."

All natural sexual procreation that I am aware of involves the blending of DNA from unidentical sexual sources. Invitro fertilization as is presently practiced for couples unable to otherwise conceive is hence natural, although it involves a high degree of technical manipulation.

That cloning or "genetic replication is carried out by the same process" strikes me as lacking in common sense, human decency, or wisdom.

But as someone who admits that you will be majoring in genetics and you have strong opinions on this, it is no wonder that you seem to see only favorable results from your (or any others) future genetic career endeavors. A wise man would warn to watch out for hubris. But experience seems to work best.

Take it from Dr. Erwin Chargaff, one of the fathers of nucleic acid and gene research: "Our time is cursed with the necessity for feeble men, masquerading as experts, to make enormously far-reaching decicions. Is there anyhting more far-reaching than the creation of new forms of life?... You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosols; you may even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you can not recall a new form of life... The hybridization of Prometheus with Herostratus is bound to give evil results... This world is given to us on loan. We come and we go; and after a time we leave earth and air and water to others who come after us. My generation, or perhaps the one preceeding mine, has been the first to engage, under the leadership of the exact scinces, in a destructive colonial warfare against nature. The future will curse us for it."</STRONG>

The reverse? No, this is all hypothetical.

Don't presume that my opinions are based on tunnel vision. Your logic is flawed; it isn't that my opinions favour this because of my future endeavours, but my future endeavours are relating to this, because my opinion favours the [side of the debate I've taken].

Tell me what common sense, wisdom, and decency is lacking?

Wisdom - I've looked at the benefits, pitfalls, and decided that it will be a wonderful thing.

Common sense - uh, I'm not sure what you mean. My opinion does not lack common sense; nor does the argument it supports.

Decency - As opposed to what? Indecency? Why are we being indecent? These are the things I want to hear.

I'm more than open to other opinions.

If our race is not to advance, what is it to do? It is what we strive for. It is our very purpose, as a species.

Cloning (genetic replication) as opposed to 'natural' fertilisation; I deem both "fine" and "natural", et al, because they're the same where it counts. Just because one uses duplicate DNA, and the other doesn't means little; genetic replication is no different from having twins, at all.

Don't think that because I'm a genetics person that I will naturally be for it; I'm a physics person too and yet I completely oppose time travel; grudgingly. I would love to research it, and complete the puzzle; but I leave you with this thought:

If I ever succeeded in creating a time machine; the next thing I'd do would be to destroy it. Given my nature, one of science and progress at all costs; that totally defies every philosophy I hold; except the most important one.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Cipher13:
The reverse? No, this is all hypothetical.

Dolly, the cloned sheep, is hypothetical? And the cloned mice, cow, cat, that I�ve seen reported on are all hypothetical? Hmmm... I must be missing something here?

Tell me what common sense, wisdom, and decency is lacking?
Wisdom - I've looked at the benefits, pitfalls, and decided that it will be a wonderful thing.

How wonderful to be able to wisely predict the future.

Common sense - uh, I'm not sure what you mean. My opinion does not lack common sense; nor does the argument it supports.

Common sense refutes your ability to predict �that it will be a wonderful thing� only. Common sense does predict however that there are certain to be �pitfalls,� perhaps many of them and a lot of them unforeseen, all of them problematic, but which in your wisdom of fore-knowledge account for nothing.

Decency - As opposed to what? Indecency? Why are we being indecent? These are the things I want to hear.

Human decency, of which common sense and wisdom are part & parcel. The kind of human decency which suggests that there are some areas of knowledge not to be triffled or messed with. The kind of human decency which strikes me as lacking in anyone who thinks that just because we can we should, and who always argue that the benefits outweigh any pitfalls. For surely as we are human we will fall into the pits once we dare to tread down roads beter left untroden.

The kind of human decency which takes to heart your own words: �I just think anyone argueing that cloning is morally wrong is jumping to conclusions without the scientific knowledge, or consideration that the subject NEEDS applied to it. You can't just have an opinion on this; you have to think it through, and know what you're talking about, for it to be valid. A rare case indeed.

I�ve added the emphasis around what I believe is worth noting. Scientific knowledge in and of itself is more often than not abstract (brainiac) knowledge. It often lacks heart, as to whether such knowledge is truly good or worthwhile, and is all too readily applied without hardly ANY �consideration that the subject NEEDS applied to it.�

Furthermore, scientific knowledge does not banish ignorance. Quite the opposite. The world is unknowable in its entirety, and thus the advance of science always carries with it the advance of ignorance. It�s part of the human condition and the mystery of our lives.

If our race is not to advance, what is it to do? It is what we strive for. It is our very purpose, as a species.

I would argue that our basest purpose as a species is species continuation; nothing more and nothing less.
As to a higher purpose for the human species I would argue in favor of ensuring optimum conditions for all life on earth to continue. Tragically, and precisely because of a corresponding lack of common sense, human decency and wisdom, the purpose about which most human endeavors appear to be presently geared toward ensuring is the exact opposite; namely a living hell.

genetic replication is no different from having twins, at all.

I can only imagine the look on a cloned human�s face when you, or his/her cloner, tell them this!

they're the same where it counts

I would love for you to elaborate on this.

[BlackGriffen]

The kind of human decency which suggests that there are some areas of knowledge not to be triffled or messed with. The kind of human decency which strikes me as lacking in anyone who thinks that just because we can we should, and who always argue that the benefits outweigh any pitfalls. For surely as we are human we will fall into the pits once we dare to tread down roads beter left untroden.

How do you know that they are best left untrodden if no one has ever trodden down them before? How can you predict the impact of something if you can't quite be sure what that something is? Sure, one can speculate, but one can never be sure what form knowledge will take if they do not already possess the knowledge.

Scientific knowledge in and of itself is more often than not abstract (brainiac) knowledge. It often lacks heart, as to whether such knowledge is truly good or worthwhile, and is all too readily applied without hardly ANY �consideration that the subject NEEDS applied to it.�

Tell me, how can knowledge be good or bad? The problem is that ideas and things can not be good or bad intrinsically. The goodness or badness of an idea are added extrinsically by people. People can be good or bad, and they can use knowledge in good or bad ways. Give me one example of anything that is best left unknown. Since it is difficult to balance upsides versus downsides without knowing the prevalence of either, I think it's safe to claim that as long as there is some use to balance the downsides, it is worth our effort to utilize the good whilst minimizing the bad.

Also consider this, knowledge is power, pure and simple. The only way to counter knowledge is with at least equal knowledge. Even if we (pick any group: us as Americans, us as Westerners, us as humanity as a whole) are somehow able to deny our human curiosity, will it be a good thing when some outside group uses the knowledge we don't have to overpower us?

Furthermore, scientific knowledge does not banish ignorance. Quite the opposite. The world is unknowable in its entirety, and thus the advance of science always carries with it the advance of ignorance. It�s part of the human condition and the mystery of our lives.

Nice characterization . What you're saying is equivalent to, "Ignorance is bliss," "What you don't know, can't hurt you." Do you have a problem with curiosity in general (there's nothing wrong with more questions to those who are curious)? I've got some news for you, ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is a hard life of bumbling in to situations and problems you don't understand. At least by expanding knowledge our knowledge, we avoid running in to pitfalls twice.

Claiming that expanding knowledge expands ignorance also shows a plain lack of understanding of the definition of ignorance; ignorance about the meaning of ignorance, if you will. Ignorance does not require the ignorant's knowledge or acknowledgment to exist. Questions are not ignorance. Questions are potential. One cannot understand the answer if one doesn't even have an inkling about the question.

In response to the idea that the whole universe is unknowable: so? Even though the task has no end in sight doesn't make it Sysyphian task. Learning, just like life, is an unwinnable battle, but one that must be fought nonetheless. As a wise man once said, it is not the destination that is important, it is the journey.

I would argue that our basest purpose as a species is species continuation; nothing more and nothing less.
As to a higher purpose for the human species I would argue in favor of ensuring optimum conditions for all life on earth to continue.

There may be hope for you yet. If survival is the aim, then shouldn't we strive at improving the odds of survival, considering Murphy's Law? How can we maximize life's survivability, if we don't even truly understand how life works? I can understand an objection to the practice of cloning, I brought up my own based on an argument from bio-diversity and change (you can't win the bet if you don't roll the dice, and a society of just clones and just genetically engineered does not roll the dice). What I disagree with is your objection to even possessing the knowledge of how to clone.

Also, making someone who is genetically identical to another isn't even cloning, it's twinning. To make a clone, one would need to copy the mind/soul/memories, whatever you want to call them. That is far beyond our current capabilities. Twins do not have identical minds, or even fingerprints, and neither will twins made by artificial twinnings.

BlackGriffen

[�]

� would like to express that he is not against Cloning humans, he just thinks the technology isn't fully developed yet and might lead to failures that could ban cloning as a praktical science in whole..

[mr. natural]

Posted by BlackGriffen:

Making someone who is genetically identical to another isn't even cloning, it's twinning. To make a clone, one would need to copy the mind/soul/memories, whatever you want to call them. That is far beyond our current capabilities. Twins do not have identical minds, or even fingerprints, and neither will twins made by artificial twinnings.

This is disingenuous, and would be laughable if I didn't think you were serious; but you guys are serious. Yesterday it was "cloning" and today it's "twinning" (just as the term "genetic engineering," which proved too loaded & uncomforting is now the all new and improved "bioengineering"). Whatever. How about we agree that they mean the same thing -- i.e., a single source sex genetic duplication by artificial manipulation -- whatever the outcome.

And the outcome is the rub, isn't it!

Your speculations on this account are as good as mine. But, if we take into account the scientific evidence which has been made available to us about the animal clones that have been made, the news is not all rosy, is it? Obesity, premature arthritis & aging, and other cellular oddities are common. So, you say "tomato" and I say "tomaytoe," it sounds like a wonderful life awaits these "artificial twinnings."

Geez, this sounds familiar. How about "The Island of Dr. Moreau" whereby the "stubborn beast flesh" always grows back. And now that you mention it, how about Murphy's Law? What can go wrong will. All this scientific tinkering just to create a human "artificial twin" or "clone." (Last I understood there are too many of us humans as it stands, many unwanted or awaiting adoption. Obviously genetic uniqueness doesn't cut it in some circles; gotta have a DNA replica, a "minnie me" to prove my worth, either as a scientist of renown, or -- from the cloners side -- as a what? A genetically unique human? Perhaps an infertile human, whose infertility is now passed on to the clonee?)

No worries, mate. More and better genetic know-how will overcome these defects. Give us time, and a lot more money of course, and we assure you that the future benefits will out weigh all these unforeseen technical difficulties.

Nonetheless, perhaps as you suggest, a unique human life is at stake. Yet someone thinks it ok in this way to play God? What happens to the rejects? Oh, right, there won't be any. 100% scientifically assured.

All I can ask is: Who is fooling whom here? The race is on to be the first to clone a human and I don't doubt that it will occur. I also have little doubt that it will likely prove a monstrously tragic and hubristic act of creation for those involved and the "twin" as was Frankenstein to Dr. Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's imagination.

Based on the topic at hand (which you started and labeled), "Human Cloning," this is the road I was and still am talking about that human decency, common sense, and wisdom strongly suggests is better left untrodden. (I may think of others but they are not germane here.)

We will never know all we might need to know about this endeavor to not only ensure that it goes right, but that the end result of the human life in question is good and right. And quite obviously there are no guarantees about anyone's life in this regard. But what we do know about cloning defects (never mind all the other unknowable speculations about the mysterious interplay of heredity, environment, etc. which makes us who we are) is enough to suggest that this is a life force arena not to be trifled with.

This is not a call for ignorance, but rather an acknowledgment of our human limitations, and an acceptance by which wisdom prevails. For if there is a signal feature about wisdom it is the capacity to say: No, I won't, or we will not, go there.

Sadly, you have misunderstood just about everything I wrote to Cipher13.

Your characterization of my statement that "the advance of science always carries with it the advance of ignorance" amounts to a rejection of knowledge in favor of ignorance is to entirely misread the totality and intent of my statement within the context of my response to Cipher13.

It is simply a statement of fact about the human condition. It attempts to lay bare one of many myths about knowledge, this one being the myth that ignorance is a solvable problem. Obviously some forms of ignorance are solvable to a degree. But we fool ourselves when we think that our worldly ignorance of the workings of all creation is a solvable problem with more scientific know-how. As I said before, we cannot comprehend the world in its entirety; nor will we ever be capable of foreseeing all the consequences of our applied scientific knowledge.

To elaborate by way of example, in 1929 the knowledge of what a substance like chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) would do to the stratospheric ozone and climatic stability was a piece of trivial ignorance as the compound had not yet been invented. But in 1930 after Thomas Midgely, Jr., discovered CFC's, what had been a piece of trivial knowledge became a critical life-threatening gap in human understanding of the biosphere. Not until the early 1970s did someone think to ask "What does this substance do to what?" In 1986 we discovered that CFC's had created a hole in the ozone over the South Pole the size of the lower 48 U.S. states. With the discovery of CFCs, knowledge increased, but like the circumference of a widening circle, ignorance grew as well.

For a more recent example, the same can be said for the gasoline additive MBTE, which the EPA decided to use because it helps reduce automobile exhaust smog. But no one thought to ask: "What else does this do to what?" It was only after it started showing up in well water tests that we came to realize that it was exceptionally good at penetrating through the soil, even from minor surface spills of gasoline (which otherwise tends to evaporate), only to end up in concentrations large enough to pollute ground water supplies.

Examples such as these (whereby the principle of quasi-solutions is in effect, and each quasi-solution generates unforeseen residue problems) are all around us wherever one cares to look.

Another misunderstanding of yours has to do with the suggestion that I consider "knowledge" good or bad. I said no such thing. I did say that "Scientific knowledge in and of itself is more often than not abstract (brainiac) knowledge. It often lacks heart, as to whether such knowledge is truly good or worthwhile, and is all too readily applied without hardly ANY 'consideration that the subject NEEDS applied to it.'� I still stand by that statement without reservation.

As to your request that I give you "one example of anything that is best left unknown," I refer you to the topic at hand.

Since it is difficult to balance upsides versus downsides without knowing the prevalence of either, I think it's safe to claim that as long as there is some use to balance the downsides, it is worth our effort to utilize the good whilst minimizing the bad.

Well, so far the prevalence of actual cloning evidence weighs more and more on the downside. As for upside, all we have to go on are the good intentions of those who wish to reassure us that the benefits will prevail. (The same was said and continues so about nuclear power; meanwhile we are stockpiling a lot of radioactive waste at great expense and catastrophic risk with no end in sight.) The promoters of such schemes always "think it's safe to claim...there is some use [$ & ego are 2 i can think of] to balance the downsides." Well, how about this claim: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

And pray tell, what are all these benefits which are to accrue to us from this prospect of Human Cloning? Frankly, I am hard pressed to see a one, especially when weighed against all the real, and potential or unforeseen, downsides. (Apparently, the upside for you is all about knowledge and power, which reminds me of Captain Ahab who says:�All my means are sane, my motive and my object mad.�)

If survival is the aim, then shouldn't we strive at improving the odds of survival, considering Murphy's Law? How can we maximize life's survivability, if we don't even truly understand how life works?

Here we are in agreement. On this account our differences may simply come down to HOW this is to be achieved.

Unlike you I seriously question how the concept of graded risk makes much sense with some areas of applied scientific knowledge when there is only one subject, as in one biosphere, the demise or catastrophic compromise of which would indeed be devastating.

What I am suggesting is this: More important than scientific knowledge is the necessity of human decency, common sense and wisdom to prevail, especially over the use of such knowledge, or else all the scientific know-how in the world won't save us from ourselves.

Yet, the prevailing and daily accumulating evidence about life on earth, especially when it comes to the application our scientific knowledge and the downside effects, is entirely lacking in the qualities I consider of paramount importance to maximize or ensure that the conditions necessary to survive are not diminished into any worse prospects than we and much else of the creation on earth presently face.

It is science and knowledge with a heart that I think we need, nothing more and nothing less.

And as to the topic at hand, human cloning fails this test.

[ 04-13-2002: Message edited by: mr. natural ]

[BlackGriffen]

Your speculations on this account are as good as mine.

Difference is that mine are not speculations. We have examples of genetically identical people who are very different persons. That is all I claimed. Nothing more or less.

You do bring up a valid point, though, about Dolly the sheep. I'll pose a hypothetical to you: a scientist creates a cloned human. A mishap occurs, and the clone he creates has a horrible mutation that will prove terminal in a few years. He lets the mutant live out its life, since it is human after all. Is he any more culpable than a couple with recessive genes who give birth to a similar such child? He didn't knowingly give the mutant a bad and short life, any more than the unfortunate couple did.

I'm very familiar with the ramifications of genetic mishaps. One of my nephews was born with a disorder called, I'm not sure of the spelling here, trisomy 13, a gamete production error. What this means is that when one of the cells was splitting in to gametes, one of the gametes ended up with both of the chromosomes in pair 13. So the baby ended up with three copies of the chromosome. Poor little kid was destined to die, there was nothing whatsoever the doctors could do to save him, his organs were literally just shutting down. The doctors were astounded that my sister even carried him to term, since the woman's body normally miscarries babies with this disorder.

I do agree on one point, though, scientists will need to do thorough testing on mammals before they clone a human in order to insure safety. This is no different than what they must do with drugs and other medical procedures now.

How about "The Island of Dr. Moreau" whereby the "stubborn beast flesh" always grows back.

Oh, yes, a piece of science fiction written about 100 years ago is still valid. Did you even know Moreau's methods? They were surgical! Did you even get the moral to that story? The point wasn't about the science, but about human nature, and it was similar to "Heart of Darkness" and "The Lord of the Flies," all excellent books I might add, in this respect. The point was about man's inner bestiality, and how we were limited by the fact that we were descended from animals in the Darwinian sense. Orwell's point wasn't, "There are things people shouldn't mess with," and I can prove it to you. Just look at Well's later work and you'll find that he was extremely optimistic about the future and science. As a side note, you'd love "Out of the Silent Planet," by C.S. Lewis, it has exactly the moral you ascribe to Moreau, though it is much less "sci" and more "fi."

And now that you mention it, how about Murphy's Law? What can go wrong will.

Do you not go outside because you're afraid of what might go wrong? Sure, there are mishaps in the learning process (how many times do babies fall down before learning to walk?), but that is no excuse for not trying.

ll this scientific tinkering just to create a human "artificial twin" or "clone." (Last I understood there are too many of us humans as it stands, many unwanted or awaiting adoption. Obviously genetic uniqueness doesn't cut it in some circles; gotta have a DNA replica, a "minnie me" to prove my worth, either as a scientist of renown, or -- from the cloners side -- as a what? A genetically unique human? Perhaps an infertile human, whose infertility is now passed on to the clonee?)

Hmmm, you're jumping ahead of technology. You're combining twinning with babies grown in test tubes, and they're two entirely different processes. You may even be adding "at an accelerated rate," in to your calculations, which is another technology still. As it stands, right now, a genetically copied person must be grown in a woman's womb.

As for your question about infertile humans, I agree! If you had read and thought about my arguments, you would realize that I argued against the practice of cloning, but argued for knowing how. Just like the fact that it is immoral to kill someone, but not immoral to know how.

Yet someone thinks it ok in this way to play God?

Was Benjamin Franklin playing god when he experimented with electricity? After all, he showed that the sparks were just little lightning bolts, and lightning had always been the province of god's will.

What happens to the rejects? Oh, right, there won't be any. 100% scientifically assured.

Probably the same thing that happens to the rejects of at fertility clinics now. As for experimentation with new methods, and even genetic combinations, that should be confined to the non-human life forms until safety can be assured in humans, and even then only tentatively. Again, just like we test drugs now.

The race is on to be the first to clone a human and I don't doubt that it will occur. I also have little doubt that it will likely prove a monstrously tragic and hubristic act of creation for those involved and the "twin" as was Frankenstein to Dr. Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's imagination.

Interesting that all the examples you quote are literary. You're one of those "humanities" people, aren't you? C.P. Snow had it right, I guess. What was Frankinstein's hubris? The act of creating his monster, or assuming that he could control it all by himself without any kind of restraints or safegaurds? I'd say his hubris was his complete lack of caution considering his lack of knowledge of the outcome.

Based on the topic at hand (which you started and labeled), "Human Cloning," this is the road I was and still am talking about that human decency, common sense, and wisdom strongly suggests is better left untrodden.

Decency, common sense, and wisdom are all relative terms defined by society generally by way of tradition. True wisdom comes from experience, however, and since the path is untrodden, how can you or anyone else claim to have any experience?

We will never know all we might need to know about this endeavor to not only ensure that it goes right, but that the end result of the human life in question is good and right. And quite obviously there are no guarantees about anyone's life in this regard.

Some Arthur C. Clarke Quotes: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong," "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible," "New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can't be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!" "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion," (In response to your continual complaints about playing god), "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Robert A. Heinlein, "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done," One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen," "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives." "Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to everything, and if we had sufficient will we should always have sufficient means. It is often merely for an excuse that we say things are impossible,"
Francois de La Rochefoucauld. "Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools," Napoleon Bonaparte. "Every noble work is at first impossible," Thomas Carlyle. History's on my side.

But what we do know about cloning defects (never mind all the other unknowable speculations about the mysterious interplay of heredity, environment, etc. which makes us who we are) is enough to suggest that this is a life force arena not to be trifled with.

It is only mysterious because we don't know how to deal with it, yet. Chaos theory is working hard on that one, though. In the meantime, have another quote I dug up:

"But what we do know about burns (never mind all the other unknowable speculations about the mysterious interplay of warmth, air, etc. which makes us who we are) is enough to suggest that this is a life force arena not to be trifled with." -- an ancient caveman, objecting to the making of fires.

This is not a call for ignorance, but rather an acknowledgment of our human limitations, and an acceptance by which wisdom prevails. For if there is a signal feature about wisdom it is the capacity to say: No, I won't, or we will not, go there.

What else do you call a lack of knowledge? I wouldn't call acknowledging limitations (in the sense of accepting them) wisdom, I'd call it laziness.

It is simply a statement of fact about the human condition.

Try opinion.

It attempts to lay bare one of many myths about knowledge, this one being the myth that ignorance is a solvable problem.

I never said it was solvable. In fact, if you had bothered to read my post, I admitted that it wasn't. There will always be more that we don't know than we know. That's no excuse to not learn, though.

As I said before, we cannot comprehend the world in its entirety; nor will we ever be capable of foreseeing all the consequences of our applied scientific knowledge.

Bad news, we can't even foresee the consequences of a simple act as going to the grocery store: will you be hit by a drunk driver? Will you slip on a wet floor and break your back? Will you meet the love of your life? Though we cannot foresee the consequences of knowing more, we can foresee the consequences of knowing less. Again, you take the attitude, "What you don't know, can't hurt you," and it's completely wrong. What you don't know is more likely to hurt you, since you cannot know the consequences of what you don't know. In knowing, we at least have the possibility of controlling.

With the discovery of CFCs, knowledge increased, but like the circumference of a widening circle, ignorance grew as well.

IGNORANCE CANNOT INCREASE WITH KNOWLEDGE!!! Get that through your thick freaking skull. Look at it this way, ignorance is the amount of knowledge that we do not know. That, as you have said and I have admitted is infinite. Increase knowledge known, and it is still infinite, but definitely not any more infinite than before (in fact a little less, if such a thing is possible). Let me express the relationship mathematically:

all_ignorance = all_hypothetically_knowable - all_known

It's an extremely simple relationship. Judging from you're example, you're calling ignorance the ability to do harm, which isn't true. Power (thus, knowledge) increases the ability to do harm alongside the ability to do good. So what, though? Are adults, no matter how judiciously they use their power, worse then children simply because they are more capable of doing harm than children?

Examples such as these (whereby the principle of quasi-solutions is in effect, and each quasi-solution generates unforeseen residue problems) are all around us wherever one cares to look.

And each problem identified leads to better less-quasi-solutions. If you have a way of coming up with real solutions that don't have any problems, I, and the rest of the planet I'm sure, am all ears. Keep in mind, though, once pandora's box has been opened, it cannot be closed, and it only takes one curious individual to open it. Also, in this case the box contains benefits greater than just hope in their tangibility as well as drawbacks.

Another misunderstanding of yours has to do with the suggestion that I consider "knowledge" good or bad. I said no such thing.

The implication is there. How can something be best unknown if the knowledge is not bad?

As to your request that I give you "one example of anything that is best left unknown," I refer you to the topic at hand.

Fine, knowledge of twinning is a prerequisite of pretty much all genetic engineering. If we cannot even make a copy, how the hell are we going to improve on the genetic code? The potential benefits of precise knowledge of genetic engineering are manifold: cure hereditary conditions, wipe out cancer via nano-machines that can spot the results of a cell whose genetic code is out of whack, fix the immune system so that it doesn't cause heart attacks (see this month's Scientific American: if immune cells had the ability to digest cholesterol that was literally rotting in our blood stream, then the plaque wouldn't build up), make pets with longer lives, make a kind of clam that can filter pollution from the water, etc. The best part is that we don't even know all the potential benefits! Do you think that Babbage, the man who conceived a mechanical computer, could have foreseen the PC revolution?

The same was said and continues so about nuclear power; meanwhile we are stockpiling a lot of radioactive waste at great expense and catastrophic risk with no end in sight.

Understanding nuclear power is a prerequisite of developing fusion power. The only byproduct of a fusion reactor would be helium.

Frankly, I am hard pressed to see a one, especially when weighed against all the real, and potential or unforeseen, downsides.

I'm surprised you aren't too paralyzed with fear and indecision to leave your house. You sound so pessimistic, it's sad. Why don't we add to that the fact that inaction has just as many unforeseen consequences as action does. As FDR once said, "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." There are just as many bad consequences to not knowing how to clone (a disease that takes advantage of a weakness in our genome [like aids], some other group [be it a country or aliens] using their knowledge of how to clone against us, etc.), as there are to knowing how.

Unlike you I seriously question how the concept of graded risk makes much sense with some areas of applied scientific knowledge when there is only one subject, as in one biosphere, the demise or catastrophic compromise of which would indeed be devastating.

Well, yeah this is true. I'd say that tinkering with micro-organisms (that we have a hard time fully controlling) is more likely to lead to catastrophic failure than tinkering with large ones. That just means that we need to be more cautious in use.

What I am suggesting is this: More important than scientific knowledge is the necessity of human decency, common sense and wisdom to prevail, especially over the use of such knowledge, or else all the scientific know-how in the world won't save us from ourselves.

(emphasis added) That's what I've been trying to say! This whole time, I've been arguing that we should know how to clone, but should not actually do it. For the simple sake of biodiversity and flexibility, cloning should not be abused. Knowledge of cloning is a prerequisite of so much more, however, that it is almost impossible for us not to know how if we want knowledge to progress.

BlackGriffen

[mr. natural]

Posted by BlackGriffen:
Difference is that mine are not speculations. We have examples of genetically identical people who are very different persons. That is all I claimed. Nothing more or less.

We are NOT speculating about identical twins born from the fertilization of a female gamete by a male sperm! As I understood it we are speculating about a �cloned� human. Granted, genetically identical twins of the sort we do know about can be different. But when it comes to a �clone� the evidence at hand (from animal clones) strongly suggests that unforeseen genetic defects await these individuals.

You do bring up a valid point, though, about Dolly the sheep.

I�ve done nothing other than bring up valid points, many of which you seem to overlook or otherwise lose track of as you�ve run circles around yourself trying to prove me wrong.

I'll pose a hypothetical to you: a scientist creates a cloned human. A mishap occurs, and the clone he creates has a horrible mutation that will prove terminal in a few years. He lets the mutant live out its life, since it is human after all. Is he any more culpable than a couple with recessive genes who give birth to a similar such child? He didn't knowingly give the mutant a bad and short life, any more than the unfortunate couple did.

My reply to this query is thus: The unwitting couple involved in the act of human procreation with recessive genes are acting within the context of loVe. The genetic engineer involved in cloning is acting within the context of scientific advancement.

Now, you tell me who is more likely to offer the best of life to the doomed child in question?

Hint: I imagine you saw the Kubrick/Spielberg movie, A.I. Remember the reaction of the the a.i. kid when he met his true creator in his labratory? All he wanted was the love of his mommy, not the self-aggrandizing praise offered by the scientist. Go figure.

I'm very familiar with the ramifications of genetic mishaps. One of my nephews was born with a disorder...(snip)... Poor little kid was destined to die, there was nothing whatsoever the doctors could do to save him, his organs were literally just shutting down. The doctors were astounded that my sister even carried him to term, since the woman's body normally miscarries babies with this disorder.

Perhaps paternal love, even in the face of great odds at success, counts for more than you seem to understand.

I do agree on one point, though, scientists will need to do thorough testing on mammals before they clone a human in order to insure safety. This is no different than what they must do with drugs and other medical procedures now.

I never made this point. However, now that you have raised it, I do not believe that animals are, in the way which you describe, fit for �testing� much of anything on. (What can we say for certain about the inner lives of any animal? Practically nothing. And our human arrogance precludes caring.) Which also means I am not in favor of cloning a species about to go extinct either. I think we should stand condemned as failing in our our duties as stewards to insure the preservation of all life forms in the given manner which they need to survive on their own.

In the words of Wendell Berry: �The Creator�s love for the creation is mysterious precisely because it does not conform to human purposes. The wild ass and the wild lilies are loved by God for their own sake; and yet they are part of a pattern that we must love because of our dependence upon it. This is a pattern that humans can understand well enough to respect and preserve, though they cannot �control� it or even hope to understand it completely... the divine mandate to use the world justly and charitably, then, defines every person�s moral predicament as that of a steward.�

And the predicament of stewardship is: �To live we must daily break the bread the body and shed the blood of creation. When we do this lovingly, knowingly, skillfully, reverently, it is a sacrament. When we do it greedily, clumsily, ignorantly, destructively, it is a desecration.�

But do not mistake Wendell Berry�s words here as suggesting that he would favor cloning if done �lovingly, knowingly, skillfully, (or) reverently.� Far from it.

The point (of The Island of Dr. Moreau) wasn't about the science, but about human nature...

So what? Seeing as �science� is practiced only by humans stuck within their nature, how in the world can our scientific endeavors ever be so confidently vouchsafed? Like all human endeavors, science is no less prone to mistakes than anything else we do just because it is scientific!

Even if science could be made pure, we tend to forget or wish to ignore, that Nature is herself party to all our endeavors, and the ways and means at her disposal to confound our efforts of control are, for all intents and purposes, infinite. And thus I repeat again, we cannot know everything there is to know about the subject we wish to comprehend, nor will we ever be able to control all the variables that make Murphy�s Law amount to a succinct and default common sense law.

The point is that some enterprises of knowledge or science are too big to mess with, whereby the bigger the power involved the bigger the disaster when we or it inevitably f*ckup.

(As to H.G.Wells later works, in which scientific optimism abounds, I would say that these are of lessor imaginative quality and power precisely because he glosses over the tragic reality of human nature.)

Do you not go outside because you're afraid of what might go wrong? Sure, there are mishaps in the learning process (how many times do babies fall down before learning to walk?), but that is no excuse for not trying.

Yeah, I sit in my cave and do nothing. Back on topic, we are after all speculating about a cloned human life; perhaps many of them.

As to the �learning process� (such as falling down), evolution has well endowed us with the capacity to cope with such minor mishaps while learning to walk. But we are still talking about something which only man in his supreme arrogance would attempt to do solely because we think we can -- �we have the knowledge and the power!�
I�ll trust nature�s way any day of the week before I give in to granting absolute trust to our ways. The evidence at hand about all the ways we prove ourselves stupid and nature is proven mysteriously intelligent is mounting daily. But the belief in our powers of abstract knowledge is an arrogance of blinkered folly and denial of reality.

Hmmm, you're jumping ahead of technology. You're combining twinning with babies grown in test tubes, and they're two entirely different processes. You may even be adding "at an accelerated rate," in to your calculations, which is another technology still. As it stands, right now, a genetically copied person must be grown in a woman's womb.

You�re the one jumping to conclusions that I in no way said or implied. Of course I understand that as of right now a human clone would be grown in a woman's womb and not in a test tube. The problem is that you talk about �cloning� and �twinning� as two different kettles of fish. If it means a single source sex genetic duplication by artificial manipulation it is a �clone.�

As for your question about infertile humans, I agree! If you had read and thought about my arguments, you would realize that I argued against the practice of cloning, but argued for knowing how. Just like the fact that it is immoral to kill someone, but not immoral to know how.

I have always recognized our agreement about this point. The point we disagree about has to do with believing that �knowing how� to clone anything is acceptable. Here we disagree completely. What would be the point of knowing how if you weren�t going to do it? And if we are not going to do it why bother knowing how?

Was Benjamin Franklin playing god when he experimented with electricity? After all, he showed that the sparks were just little lightning bolts, and lightning had always been the province of god's will.

Good ol� Ben Franklin was not attempting to play God -- in that he was not reconfiguring the laws of nature to suit his whims; he was only dispelling a superstition. Cloning is playing God.

As for experimentation with new methods, and even genetic combinations, that should be confined to the non-human life forms until safety can be assured in humans, and even then only tentatively. Again, just like we test drugs now.

A cloned human life is not �tentative.� Nor for that matter is any other form of genetically re-combined life form. Once set loose in the world at large, it is beyond our control.

What was Frankinstein's hubris? The act of creating his monster, or assuming that he could control it all by himself without any kind of restraints or safegaurds? I'd say his hubris was his complete lack of caution considering his lack of knowledge of the outcome.

(emphasis mine.)I don�t know how many ways I can say it but this is exactly my point! We attempt too many dangerous things without regard as to the outcome simply because we think know-how amounts to know-it-all.

Decency, common sense, and wisdom are all relative terms defined by society generally by way of tradition. True wisdom comes from experience, however, and since the path is untrodden, how can you or anyone else claim to have any experience?

I think the evidence weighing aginst such a contemporary and relative notion of nonsense is overwhelming. By way of experience, the ancient Greeks posited an understanding of the nature of man that is, in most regards, more compellingly accurate than we have about ourselves today. But just because you, or society at large, think the notion of human decency, common sense and wisdom is traditional (hence out-dated) does not make such notions any less decent, nonsensical, or unwise. The ancient Greeks would rightly accuse us of the supreme sin of hubris to tread down roads best left to the Gods. Human cloning is one such road.

Some Arthur C. Clarke Quotes: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong," "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible," "New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can't be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!" "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion," (In response to your continual complaints about playing god), "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Robert A. Heinlein, "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done," One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen," "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives." "Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to everything, and if we had sufficient will we should always have sufficient means. It is often merely for an excuse that we say things are impossible," Francois de La Rochefoucauld. "Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools," Napoleon Bonaparte. "Every noble work is at first impossible," Thomas Carlyle. History's on my side.

The amalgamation of quotes here is so dense and, dare I say it, dunderheaded, especially your ending quip, that I�m not sure where to begin. However, I will challenge two. 1.) Arthur C. Clarke�s quote about religious hijacking of morailty as the greatest tragedy in mankind�s history. To this I suggest the greatest tragedy is the abondonment of morals, be they religious or common sense ones, by the abstracting powers of reason and logic. As E.F.Schumacher wrote in �A Guide for the Perplexed�:

�Faith in modern man�s omnipotence is wearing thin... More and more people are begining to realize that �the modern experiment� has failed... Man closed the gates of Heaven against himself and tried, with immense energy and ingenuity, to confine himself to the Earth. He is now discovering that... a refusal to reach for Heaven means an involuntary descent into Hell.�

2.) Robert A. Heinlein�s quote about forbidding to know certain things no matter how holy the motives. I guess this means he would favor the destruction of all life in order to allow the knowledge that would bring this about. Now that�s smart!

(In response to my statement: �But what we do know about cloning defects (never mind all the other unknowable speculations about the mysterious interplay of heredity, environment, etc. which makes us who we are) is enough to suggest that this is a life force arena not to be trifled with.� You wrote...)

It is only mysterious because we don't know how to deal with it, yet. Chaos theory is working hard on that one, though. In the meantime, have another quote I dug up: "But what we do know about burns (never mind all the other unknowable speculations about the mysterious interplay of warmth, air, etc. which makes us who we are) is enough to suggest that this is a life force arena not to be trifled with." -- an ancient caveman, objecting to the making of fires.

If I am not mistaken, Chaos theory supports my contentions a lot better than yours. If not, I�ll believe it when I see it, but I won�t be betting on it anytime soon.

(As to my statement: �This is not a call for ignorance, but rather an acknowledgment of our human limitations, and an acceptance by which wisdom prevails. For if there is a signal feature about wisdom it is the capacity to say: No, I won't, or we will not, go there.� You wrote...)

What else do you call a lack of knowledge? I wouldn't call acknowledging limitations (in the sense of accepting them) wisdom, I'd call it laziness.

Rather than answer this twice or more, I�ll refer you to read my comments further below on the same.

(To my statement; �It is simply a statement of fact about the human condition.� You wrote...)

Try opinion.

The human condition is in fact limited! Of all the features about life that we can ascertain for certain, and borne out by all the long hewed life & death human species experience down the ages (which is your requirement necessary for wisdom), what is there to argue with here? We do not live forever; We are not infalliable; We cannot do or know everything. Anyone who pretends otherwise some folks might rightly consider insane. Of course we can �think� to do just about anything but wisdom recommends against doing everything we can think of doing. Those who �think� otherwise are either insane, dead, locked in jails, or living the fantasy life of a child.

I tend to think that a lot of our recent scientific endeavors have allowed us to life the fantasy life of children. This mythological belief in the powers of science as an unqualified human success story is wearing thin. And before it kills us I hope to see it killed off.

(I wrote: �It attempts to lay bare one of many myths about knowledge, this one being the myth that ignorance is a solvable problem.� you replied...)

I never said it was solvable. In fact, if you had bothered to read my post, I admitted that it wasn't. There will always be more that we don't know than we know. That's no excuse to not learn, though.

The reason not to learn (and do) somethings is twofold. One has to do with the fact that we cannot comprehend everything there is to know about it, and secondly because we are imperfect (and more knowledge will not make us less imperfect). This reasoning should hold true especially if it means wordly impoverishment should our knowledge or our wherewithal to use such power prove wrong.

Bad news, we can't even foresee the consequences of a simple act as going to the grocery store... Though we cannot foresee the consequences of knowing more, we can foresee the consequences of knowing less. Again, you take the attitude, "What you don't know, can't hurt you," and it's completely wrong. What you don't know is more likely to hurt you, since you cannot know the consequences of what you don't know. In knowing, we at least have the possibility of controlling.

(emphasis mine) Again, this depends upon the knowledge in question and the possibility of irreversability should our knowledge turn out incomplete. Here we are talking about human cloning. But in regard to the notion that �in knowing, we at least have the possibility of controlling,� not only is it equally possible that we cannot control knowledge once it�s made apparent, I think it is clear that we cannot �control� it at all. Many forms of knowledge now control us.

(I wrote, �With the discovery of CFCs, knowledge increased, but like the circumference of a widening circle, ignorance grew as well.� You replied...)

IGNORANCE CANNOT INCREASE WITH KNOWLEDGE!!! Get that through your thick freaking skull. Look at it this way, ignorance is the amount of knowledge that we do not know. That, as you have said and I have admitted is infinite. Increase knowledge known, and it is still infinite, but definitely not any more infinite than before (in fact a little less, if such a thing is possible). Let me express the relationship mathematically:
all_ignorance = all_hypothetically_knowable - all_known
It's an extremely simple relationship.

Apart from the fact that I used the word �grew� not �increase,� this is semantic hair-splitting at its worst. I clearly said, before giving the examples I did, that �the advance of knowledge always carries with it the advance of ignorance.� However you want to confuse matters it will not change the fact that all our knowledge is incomplete knowledge.

And this gets at the heart of our dispute. Unlike you I do not believe we can know everything there is to know about any subject. Or that our human science can for that matter.

Judging from you're example, you're calling ignorance the ability to do harm, which isn't true. Power (thus, knowledge) increases the ability to do harm alongside the ability to do good. So what, though? Are adults, no matter how judiciously they use their power, worse then children simply because they are more capable of doing harm than children?

I think my former examples explain myself perfectly well, so I won�t bother to try and sort out your obfuscation here.

What I will point out is this: Usually a parent�s sense of identity and responsibility keeps them from abusing their children. Where they fail in this regard they are held accountable and punished. But of the corporate entity which pollutes a surrounding countryside and does harm to all the life forms therein, who steps forward to accept responsibility and be held accountable? Virtually no one. Sure, the corporation may pay a fine, settle a few law suits, etc., but the innate sense of identity and responsibility that would of precluded this from happening in the first place is more often than not completely lacking. From vast experience I think we know by now that there is not any place for such quaint notions of emotional fidelity to anyone or anything within the logic of corporate efficency.

About which David Ehrenfeld has this say: �Efficency as an idea and a method is so heavily dependent on pure logic or reason and so little tempered by emotion that it is incapable of attaining the kind of Quality that a guiding philosophy must have.� And yet this is the structure we give over to the awesome powers of life and death with all the dangerous know-how borne of the pure pursuit of knowledge. Life does not matter, only the bottom line does.

Maybe you�d agree with me that a change is in order, but I don�t see one happening anytime soon, because as you have noted, knowledge equals power, and we don�t relinquish power easily. And corporate power is akin to absolute power; about which we know what the old adage says.


(I wrote, �Examples such as these (whereby the principle of quasi-solutions is in effect, and each quasi-solution generates unforeseen residue problems) are all around us wherever one cares to look.� You replied...)

And each problem identified leads to better less-quasi-solutions. If you have a way of coming up with real solutions that don't have any problems, I, and the rest of the planet I'm sure, am all ears. Keep in mind, though, once pandora's box has been opened, it cannot be closed, and it only takes one curious individual to open it. Also, in this case the box contains benefits greater than just hope in their tangibility as well as drawbacks.

This is wishful thinking. As Eugene Schwartz has pointed out in his book �Overskill�:

�The dialectical process whereby a solution to one problem generates sets of new problems that eventually preclude solutions is summarized in the five steps of techno-social development.
�1. Because of the interrelationships and limitations existing within a closed system, a techno-social solution is never complete and hence is a quasi-solution.
�2. Each quasi-solution generates a residue of new techno-social problems arising from: (a) incompleteness, (b) augmentation, and (c) secondary effects.
�3. The new problems proliferate at a faster rate than solutions can be found to meet them.
�4. Each successive set of residue problems is more difficult to solve than predecessor problems because of seven factors: (a) dynamics of technology, (b) increased complexity, (c) increased cost, (d) decreased resources, (e) growth and expansion, (f) requirements for greater control, and (g) inertia of social institutions.
�5. The residue of unsolved techno-social problems converge in an advanced technological society to a point where techno-social solutions are no longer possible.�

Rene Dubois said the same thing in a different way in his book �Reason Awake�:

�Developing countertechnologies to correct the new kinds of damage constantly being created by technological innovations is a policy of despair. If we follow this course we shall increasingly behave like hunted creatures, fleeing from one protective device to another, each more costly, more complex, and more undependable than the one before; we shall be concerned chiefly with sheltering ourselves from environmental dangers while sacrificing the values that make life worth living.�

Or perhaps, being of a theoritical bent, you�ll be more accepting of John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern�s maximization theory, which showed that it is mathematically impossible to maximize more than one variable in an interlinked system at a given time. In effect that in a complex world we cannot work everything out for the best simultaneously.


Another misunderstanding of yours has to do with the suggestion that I consider "knowledge" good or bad. I said no such thing.

The implication is there. How can something be best unknown if the knowledge is not bad?

It is not �knowledge� per say, but the recognition that some forms of knowledge put to unrestrained use will at some time and by some person be used poorly; perhaps even deadly so. I am specifically refering to knowledge which, when we err as surely as we will, infringes upon life & death powers of catastrophic proportions; powers befit for gods but not us mortal men. Galileo pointing out the errors of the Church�s doctrine are not what I am refering to. And this is where a culturally accepted and recognized (or traditional) code of restraint would mediate over the whims and fancies of individuals, or groups, who think they know better. Human decency, common sense and wisdom about our fallibility warn us against such hubris. Yet the specific kinds of knowledge regarded as out of bounds for pursuit and/or application would be open for debate as they arose by the society wise enough to adhere to such a notion. The only society of this sort I am familiar with are the Amish. We could learn from them if we ever cared to.

Fine, knowledge of twinning is a prerequisite of pretty much all genetic engineering. If we cannot even make a copy, how the hell are we going to improve on the genetic code?

I see no reason that we need to �improve on the genetic code.� It is mysteriously perfect as is. Just because we are made uncomfortable with the outcome on occasion does not make it bad, or wrong, or in need of our meddling arrogance. (Life is ultimately tragic for even the most fortunate of us, and we cheapen our bitter sweet labors with each and every attempt to banish this fact of our human condition.) We are as likely to make it worse in some unforeseen fashion as we are to improve it. Of the very few facets of nature which we have improved, I can attest to many more which we have made an absolute mess of.

The potential benefits of precise knowledge of genetic engineering are manifold: cure hereditary conditions, wipe out cancer via nano-machines that can spot the results of a cell whose genetic code is out of whack, fix the immune system so that it doesn't cause heart attacks, make pets with longer lives, make a kind of clam that can filter pollution from the water, etc. The best part is that we don't even know all the potential benefits! Do you think that Babbage, the man who conceived a mechanical computer, could have foreseen the PC revolution?

There is no such thing as �precise knowledge,� especially in this genetic arena. Tell me one thing we know �precisely?� We cannot and never will know anything �precisely�! But let us grant you that there is; such a notion suggests there IS plenty of �imprecise knowledge� that attaches itself to any level of precision knowledge we do have. Such is the dangerous paradox of knowledge which many ancient civilizations understood. Like the two-faced god, Janus, knowledge cuts both ways.

As to the �best part is we don�t even know all the potential benefits,� I could just as easily and more realistically turn into: �The worst part is we don�t even know all the potential problems.�

As for the �PC revolution,� I assume you are talking about the information revolution? I don�t know about you but I have not seen any noticable revolutionary increase of human goodness just because of this development. Is the world better off today than it was before this PC revolution? I tend to think not.

Understanding nuclear power is a prerequisite of developing fusion power. The only byproduct of a fusion reactor would be helium.

We don�t even �understand� the full term results or costs, either financially or of increased rates of cancer, and other attendent problems, of our fission nuclear power use as is. What some of us do understand is that we have wagered an incredibly dangerous and foolish gamble with not our very lives at stake, but much else of this earthly creation. If this is the �prerequesite� to knowing anything about �fusion� nuclear power I want nothing to do with it. I can think of a lot more benign (as in, less catastrophically deadly) forms of energy we should and could have already researched and developed if we weren�t so enamored with false promises.

I'm surprised you aren't too paralyzed with fear and indecision to leave your house. You sound so pessimistic, it's sad. Why don't we add to that the fact that inaction has just as many unforeseen consequences as action does. As FDR once said, "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." There are just as many bad consequences to not knowing how to clone (a disease that takes advantage of a weakness in our genome [like aids], some other group [be it a country or aliens] using their knowledge of how to clone against us, etc.), as there are to knowing how.

Right again; you�ll find me cowering under a rock just outside your door. Good Grief, I�m so surprised with your confident powers of knowledgable omnipotence that you don�t cure cancer, end world hunger for the impoverished, banish the energy crisis with your perpetual motion machine, and bring peace to the middle east, all while brushing your teeth. This the real tragedy, that you believe so powerfully in man�s omnipotence to steer the planet toward some futuristic never-never land!

Back on topic, FDR was refering I believe to the Great Depression. What he might say about cloning is anyone�s guess.

As to the later half of your statement, I suggest you�re the one who is fearful. Aliens using clones against us? Believe me, if they arrive here they could then wipe us out however they pleased. As for AIDS, or some other such disease, there will always be a percentage of the population immune to such afflictions; that�s the beauty of natural selection, and our species will survive (but perhaps not with some of the scientific endeavors we are fooling with). As to some other group using clones against us is so fantastical that it defies a reply.

(I wrote, �Unlike you I seriously question how the concept of graded risk makes much sense with some areas of applied scientific knowledge when there is only one subject, as in one biosphere, the demise or catastrophic compromise of which would indeed be devastating.� You replied...)

Well, yeah this is true. I'd say that tinkering with micro-organisms (that we have a hard time fully controlling) is more likely to lead to catastrophic failure than tinkering with large ones. That just means that we need to be more cautious in use... That's what I've been trying to say! This whole time, I've been arguing that we should know how to clone, but should not actually do it. For the simple sake of biodiversity and flexibility, cloning should not be abused. Knowledge of cloning is a prerequisite of so much more, however, that it is almost impossible for us not to know how if we want knowledge to progress.

I think I�ve disabused you of any agreement you might have thought we had here.

To reiterate: Knowledge of how to do vast and risky things has far outpaced our ability to use it responsibly. And much of this knowledge cannot be used responsibly, safely and to consistently good purposes.

Given all the failures of false promises with just about anything scientifically too big and true to believe, I still think �human cloning� fits this category. Human decency, common sense and wisdom tell me I am more right on this account than I will ever be proven wrong.

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: mr. natural ]