Cloning

[Back]

Good reason for it. (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-RTO-rohts&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040731%2F1701293682.htm&sc=rohts)


They cloned mouse embryos from a melanoma skin cancer cell, and created healthy adult mice using some of the cloned cancer cells, showing that malignancy is not the inevitable fate of a cancer cell.

The idea of cloning is pretty old. Futurists of the past probably thought it up. They never forsaw something like this though. And they never foresaw modern arguments about it, genetic crossing, and stem cell research.

I was alarmed at the prospect, then thought, fuck it, nature is way more stable than a human could ever mess with.

[Back]

Oh, also, if any of you cloning researchers want to open a privatized facility, talk to me about marketing. I've got a great corporate identity already laid out. I'd be happy to help out of courtisy, and big fat grant money.

[Satira]

That was a really interesting article. I wish they'd allow us to test some of this stuff out, instead of on mice.

[Numbers]

I got into an argument the other week with a guy who was fiercely against cloning, because he was worried that nations would instantly create giant clone armies, and he was worried people like Bill Gates would just clone themselves to live forever and control the worlds finances.

It took all my restraint not to punch him in the face out of sheer principle.

[Delirium]

I was alarmed at the prospect, then thought, fuck it, nature is way more stable than a human could ever mess with.

So i take it your not worried about the enviroment then?

[Boobstastegreat]

Cloning = amazing idea

Excess = always bad

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Delirium

I was alarmed at the prospect, then thought, fuck it, nature is way more stable than a human could ever mess with.

So i take it your not worried about the enviroment then?

Explain what environmental concerns are attached to cloning and you may have a case.

[Latrinsorm]

I bet he was talking about the nature being stable part when he implied how humans totally pwn the environment on a regular basis.

[Back]

Yeah, guess I have to explain that one. Not everything is black and white though. I can see where someone would draw that conclusion. Let me elaborate...

In terms of life and nature... nature has a system of balance through entropy. Its in all of its systems. A cold drink warms, a hot drink cools etc. Life, being a part of nature, has this as well, though it is called adaptation. Its all give and take, the extemes in a constant tug-of-war, neither winning or losing. I do not think it within the human race to change that very core aspect of nature as a whole because humans are a part of it, and, in the grand scale of things, humans are fairly low.

When you start asking if humans can change the enviroment, yeah, of course they do. All life does. A change for the better or worse depends on what it affects. When we pollute enough to start seeing increases in skin cancer and lung disease while using up vital resources in the process, let alone adversly affecting other biospheres (if you care about other biospheres), we need to see what we can do to limit the damage at the very least to ourselves. Nature will cleanse itself when neccessary. An ice age on earth due to nature trying to balance itself from our damage, wouldn't affect the rest of the universe all that much.

If we are able to deconstruct nature's systems as an advantage to ourselves, and to ours and other biospheres, then I'm all for it. Take apart atoms, crossbreed genes, break down the building blocks, figure out the systems, and let us be more enlightened about ourselves, life, and the universe.

If we see adverse effects, then of corse, stop.

[xtc]

So you don't see may medical, legal, ethical, enviromental, or moral problems?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
nature has a system of balance through entropy.I don't mean to be all doom and gloom (because it just doesn't jive with my haircut) but entropy isn't a means to balance. Entropy is a means to nothingness. Total :(-land. (I'm also not trying to nit-pick on a statement that has very little to do with the topic, even though that's sort of what I'm doing)

[Back]

Originally posted by xtc
So you don't see may medical, legal, ethical, enviromental, or moral problems?

No, not if we do it with positive goals in mind.

Someone is going to do it eventually. It would be a good idea for a global community to organize a structure for such research so as to keep everyone on the same page about progress and danger.


Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
nature has a system of balance through entropy.I don't mean to be all doom and gloom (because it just doesn't jive with my haircut) but entropy isn't a means to balance. Entropy is a means to nothingness. Total :(-land. (I'm also not trying to nit-pick on a statement that has very little to do with the topic, even though that's sort of what I'm doing)

Right. I used entropy too broadly. What that balance between the extremes is, along with entropy and perhaps agitation, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, physicist or scholar. It just seems to me that the idea than humans could somehow inadvertantly or advertantly wipe out existance is a little outrageous.

How cloning affects us and our enviroment is something we will have to watch closely. In any of the ways xtc suggested. Though I wouldn't care much about legality.