A lil controversy: Cloning

**TechWins** · 02-15-2003

i see diseases, some, as a form of natural selection so to speak.

I see diseases as people either having to suffer through or die due to a terrible cause. A disease is not a natural process of death; it is a terrible reason for the person to die. My grandpa up until he was diagnosed with cancer at age 73 was a very active person. Then he had to start his treatmeant and for the past 3 years his life has been terrible. He probably doesn't have a whole lot of time life because of the disease he has. Now if he hadn't ever been infected with the disease he would still be living a great life. Now are you saying this is a natural way for my grandpa to die? I'm not trying to bring in personl matters to this at all, in fact I hope this person level doesn't continue, but I'm using him as an example to show you that disease is NOT a natural way for someone to die.

Also, the children who are born downsyndrome (sp?) could live a much better life if there were means of preventing them from having that disease. However, if all people felt that there disease was natural and should not be cured because the rest of might suffer from it, no such means of prevening that disease could ever take place.

Honestly, I think that reasoning is absolute selfishness and unthoughtfullness towards the well-being of others. I guess it's that I see a human life as being important enough so that there life/life span shouldn't be altered the least bit by disease.

**GanglyLamb** · 02-15-2003

well alot of ppl seem to be against cloning/genetic researche but think of the things you can do with it.

For instance a pregnant women can let her unborn baby being tested at the downsyndrome. This way they'll know what they should expect from their child. Face it a child that has the downsyndrome or that is autistic isnt a self-esteem-boost for the parents. They will be afraid of getting another one (perhaps next child also has downsyndrome or whatever). + Its not fun for the kid himself. I know we r talking about lifes here but if you can prevent a creature of being born with some deviation of normal pattern......

And as for cloning: think about this there isnt a donor in the whole world for you. (you have a bad hart). Then they would be able to get some cells of ur heart and then re-make a new heart just like yours.... Even better (dunno how its called in english) but in the back of ur spine there are cells that can handle everything.... they also use those cells to clone. I think that in the future regeneration is waiting for us.

Call me a dreamer, so be it.

**Fountain** · 02-15-2003

Did that weird US cult not already clone a human?

Cant remember, but it was born an exact copy of its mother-something like that.

**GanglyLamb** · 02-15-2003

Did that weird US cult not already clone a human?

yup they "say" its a clone but untill we aint got no proff we cant believe them..... maybe that Shiro would know something more about it. because where he lives (country) should alrdy be a human clone walking the surface of the earth

**RoD** · 02-15-2003

But tech, disease is natural. The earth has to have a method to control its population, ie aging, disease, sickness, etc. Maybe natural selection is the wrong word, perhaps needed is a better one.

**Fountain** · 02-15-2003

Originally posted by RoD
But tech, disease is natural. The earth has to have a method to control its population, ie aging, disease, sickness, etc. Maybe natural selection is the wrong word, perhaps needed is a better one.

control its population? I cant see the link between ageing and the earth??

Not all diseases are 'natural' so to speak.

Maybe ageing/sickness/death is a 'human' thing which we accept, not related to 'mother nature' etc.

**RoD** · 02-15-2003

were as much a part of nature as say, a monkey. Humans adapted to things the same as the animals, were just more intelligent. I can see a connection between us and the earth or mother nature.

Circle of life involves us as much as the animals.

**~~Silvercord~~** · 02-15-2003

close this thread, close this thread, close this thread, close this thread, ^ infinity

**Clyde** · 02-16-2003

Cloning research is a good thing because therapeutic cloning holds such great medical possibility. Research on animals is never a nice prospect and serious thought should always be given to alternatives, however in some instance because we deem human life ultimately more important than animal and because the alternatives are not suitable in many instances animal research is still neccessary.

The "first generation" of cloned animals don't have great lives, neither do many of the animals that new drugs are tested on, or the mice who have their backs broken to investigate paralysis. But because we deem human life more valuable ultimately the rewards are seen to outweigh the costs.

There will no doubt come a time in the future where alternatives like computational models and pseudo in-vivo environments have been perfected replacing the need for animal experimentation, where we no longer eat animals but instead synthetic meats made from cell cultures, where people look back on us as barbarians.

But right now the alternative to the "barbarism" (atleast with regards to animal research) has a price tag that is too high - the loss of human life.

I believe it was "right" to clone Dolly, not because we could but because doing so has enhanced our understanding of the processes involved and understanding is what fuels technological and medical advancement.

**Clyde** · 02-16-2003

"But tech, disease is natural. The earth has to have a method to control its population, ie aging, disease, sickness, etc."

The Earth is not alive, is not aware and certainly does not choose to control populations. IF i had my way "natural" is a word that would be stripped from the English language never to be used again, not that it doesn't have a correct usage mind you but most of the time it's not used that way, its used in the 'mother nature/Gia/ wholesome/good' sense which, to be fair is a pile of balls.

However your point does have merit, if we eradicated disease then we would anticipate population control problems, the areas that would have access to the technology required would be the rich areas, where population control is much less of an issue. But in the long term removal of disease and the progressive steps towards lengthening human life will have an effect on the population, it will start rising, so what will the solution be?

Well i think that theres a pretty large universe to fill

**Nick** · 02-16-2003

society will keep it in check more or less except for maybe a madman or two.

Yes I'm a madman but that story has alot in common with
the situation today. Typical stuft like men living 1000 years,
new knowledge given to man etc.
I was wrong about the date of that
story. It's only 200BC but before christ since they found
them in the dead sea scrolls. It's almost safe to say it's
a mistaken fraud.

For example, in Genesis, the biblical account of creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as "God" in the singular, but it is a plural, which means "those who came from the sky".

Now everyone should know that these people are madman but
this is what led me to the story. In the book of Enoch they are clouds that block the sun.

I think people are underestimating the backlash. Especially
in muslim countries. 666 is 6 cloned 3 times.
(Yes I'm insane ... 6 represents falling short of the special
number 7 or simply man created on the 6 day. Another
explanation is that 666 represents the 666 talents of solomon
---wisdom that has been corupted )

**RoD** · 02-16-2003

The Earth is not alive, is not aware and certainly does not choose to control populations. IF i had my way "natural" is a word that would be stripped from the English language never to be used again, not that it doesn't have a correct usage mind you but most of the time it's not used that way, its used in the 'mother nature/Gia/ wholesome/good' sense which, to be fair is a pile of balls.

I disagree, earth sustains life with life, how is that not alive??

**Travis Dane** · 02-16-2003

Originally posted by RoD
I disagree, earth sustains life with life, how is that not alive??

Come again? Earth is earth, It's not alive. There are other beings
living ON the earth, the earth is not responsible for that.

**dP munky** · 02-16-2003

>>Come again? Earth is earth, It's not alive. There are other beings
living ON the earth, the earth is not responsible for that.

the earth has everything to do w/life, if the earth was just a rock and couldnt sustain life, we wouldnt be here...the things that the earth has done over eons of time has helped every living thing on the planet, now, does the earth have conciousness...?....well, thats a whole new thread

**RoD** · 02-16-2003

Originally posted by dP munky
>>Come again? Earth is earth, It's not alive. There are other beings
living ON the earth, the earth is not responsible for that.

the earth has everything to do w/life, if the earth was just a rock and couldnt sustain life, we wouldnt be here...the things that the earth has done over eons of time has helped every living thing on the planet, now, does the earth have conciousness...?....well, thats a whole new thread

so its not just me, thank god.