The six year old sheep died, question is, should it have ever lived?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/872966.asp
Printable View
The six year old sheep died, question is, should it have ever lived?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/872966.asp
> should it have ever lived?
Yes.
Next!
> should it have ever lived?
No.
Next!
I am of the belief that knowing how things work is a good thing, whether it be with some kind of mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, genetic engineering, computer engineering, the list goes on. Therefore I don't think the idea of cloning is a bad thing, because we may ultimately be able to discover a lot about ourselves, but when you start creating life only to have it die because of ignorance (what i mean is the scientists must have missed somethin somewhere along the line)l then you are getting into some very hot water. I think the cloning process will be slowed down by these deaths, but I don't think the research will ever be stopped.
I also think that the research is not going to stop, and I beleive that knowing how things work is good, but that doesn't mean it's right to clone animals.
>>> should it have ever lived?
No!!
we can learn from cloning? i cant think of a posative thing that could come from making a genetic copy of an organism?
...and didnt we have this descussion about a month ago
yea we did, but i thought since it died this would be good to continue, the discussion that is.
I believe in cloneing for science, i fear cloning for war and such..
Yes. Why wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally posted by RoD
The six year old sheep died, question is, should it have ever lived?
You've played too much "Red Alert 2 Yuri's revenge":pQuote:
Originally posted by RoD
i fear cloning for war and such..
never heard of it.
> i fear cloning for war and such..
You're afraid we're going to be overrun with babies, or what?
By the time we're able to do cloning right we can already make
terminators so why go through the trouble?
>>You're afraid we're going to be overrun with babies, or what?
I feel that if they can get cloning right enough to make copies of soldjers and stuff, they will be able to increase the age process :P
I can't believe anyone would buy into that BS. Even if that is ever possible, it certainly isn't now, and it's no reason to stop research.
edit: Maybe Dick Clark's proof that we have it in reverse, though.
Cloning has it advatages you know? Everybody seems to only
look in the dead cloned animals direction, But what about
being able to forever cloning for example a pig? No more
food shortage! Yeaaah!:rolleyes:
That's exactly why I think cloning isn't such a bad thing. You guys are just thinking of 'copy and pasting organisms' I'm talking about the potential knowledge we could gain from learning about genetics, i.e I don't know if making replicas of organisms will ever be useful, but we may be able to find ways to change DNA so diseases do not occur and plants can live in harsher conditions (food in the desert or on other planets perhaps). The potential good lies outside of the box, in my humble !@#$ing opinion.Quote:
No more
food shortage! Yeaaah!
Whos to say thats even good for you too eat? Thats like eating...i dunno a three-eyed fish or something...
What is the definition of a clone? An exact duplicate of another creature, right?
Well, if it's safe to eat the original one, it's safe to eat the cloned one too :p
> i dunno a three-eyed fish or something...
Mutant != clone
Well, I don't think a creature is EVER exactly the same as aQuote:
Originally posted by TravisS
What is the definition of a clone? An exact duplicate of another creature, right?
cloned one, But let's say a creates that looks exactly the same
is a clone.
who is to say the mechanical vehicles you use won't spontaneously explode on you, who is to say the buildings you step in won't collapse on your head, who is to say the next time you go to turn your computer on a circuit won't fry out...genetic engineering will take the course of every other complex science, a $$$$load of engineering will turn it into a college major instead of the new frontier.Quote:
Whos to say thats even good for you too eat? Thats like eating...i dunno a three-eyed fish or something...
But then it might look the same on the outside, but a cloned sheep might have a pigs insides.... ewww
I'm just thinking for when cloning is "perfected". When it truly is an exact copy of the original. I probably wouldn't eat pre-perfected clones either :p
Maybe it will be bad to eat, maybe it wont. But you can't say we shouldn't do something simply because of a "what if?" EVERYTHING in science has a what if!
And as far as aging cloned babies for armies (an EXTREME unlikelyhood) what is the real crime? The cloning to create new life, or the premature aging of this new life? To me its the second one, and you can't fault cloning for that.
[edit] jeez, 5 posts made it before I finished mine! [/edit]
Quote:
"Hey Martha, I heard they've got these new flying machines working, can you believe that?"
"Yes I have heard, Betty, but I would never risk my own neck riding in one!"
Not to upset anybody... legend has it that the
"Giants of reknown" (The evil spirits) were created
by the union of angles and the daughters of man.
This entertaining text is highly questionable.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/enoch/
Tjeez, That's some bull.Quote:
Originally posted by Nick
Not to upset anybody... legend has it that the
"Giants of reknown" (The evil spirits) were created
by the union of angles and the daughters of man.
I'm for clonging 100%, but can u all honestly tell me your not a little worried where it could go?
But it's why most world religions condemm clonning.Quote:
Tjeez, That's some bull.
Is it unfair not to give their views?
Yep, But i think we supassed the middle ages with their evilQuote:
Originally posted by Nick
Is it unfair not to give their views?
demons and magic by now....
Well we know that this book is older than 2000BCQuote:
Yep, But i think we supassed the middle ages with their evil
demons and magic by now....
but its origin is highly questionable. You should
read them like you would read gilgamesh or any other
old book. Mainly see how people back then acted
on the world around them. Accuracy in Gilgamesh is even
worse. Gilgamesh is 2/3 god which means there was alot of
love making :)
I'm with you RoD, I'm all for it but am a little worried about where it might go. I'm fairly confident though that society will keep it in check more or less except for maybe a madman or two.
i dont completly disagree w/the fact that cloning a pig for example could be useful (end food shortages) but when it comes to human cloning thats where its gotta stop, cloining a human shows none of the same advantages that cloining an animal just for food would.
note: i was gunna say something about playing god, but then i remembered the ill favored GOD thread, (and the fact that most of the ppl on the board dont believe in a God) and decided against it
I see all of you people talking about how cloning itself cannot possibly be useful. It doesn't seem anyone acknowledged my posts so I'm going to say my view one more time then can it. We may be able to gain very useful knowledge from genetic research (from cloning research), this knowledge may someday be used not to necessarily clone organisms, but rather we may be able to create a genetic makeup that is immune to disease. We may also be able to create plantlife that can be used to grow anywhere, for example other planets, by creating genetic code that is immune to harsh conditions. This doesn't seem out of line with everything else we have been doing. Heck Gregor Mendel was fooling around with pea plants in the 1800s(is that date correct?), this would just be more high tech.
Who needs plants when we have The Matrix?
[/seriously ........ing off mode]
Who is ........ed off, are you ........ed off? I'm not ........ed off, I actually thought your remark was funny :)Quote:
[/seriously ........ing off mode]
The definition of a clone is an exact copy of the original. In the case of the sheep, it died at 6 years of age. Did the original die at 6 years? of the same cause too? No and No.
Therefore, you wouldn't call that cloning.
If they can actually successfully clone an organism, and fit the definition of the clone, then where would the ethical dilemmas be?
Im for cloning... but only after they get it right.
>>The definition of a clone is an exact copy of the original. In the case of the sheep, it died at 6 years of age. Did the original die at 6 years? of the same cause too? No and No.
if i made a clone of you, and you die at age 65, that doesnt mean your clone would, every single concious being on this planet has a unique life experience, just because the cloned sheep died at age 6 doesnt mean that it wasnt a clone. dolly had the same genetic makeup of the origional therefor making it an exact copy!
it won't increase food. the same amount of things are getting born, they are just modified. It's not like they go poof! and a living organism pops up out of thin air.
I think it is great myself. We can learn so much from this. A lot of people say "what can you learn from just copying an organism". But if we can start modifying things to change how the clone develops, there is so much we could do.
>>but rather we may be able to create a genetic makeup that is immune to disease<<
I don't see the benefit. If we eradicated disease tomorrow then the world's population would increase at an even faster rate than it already is. There would eventually be mass starvation and thirst as the earth couldn't physically support all the people. Huge wars would break out due to overcrowding. Huge numbers of people would be killed, just as with disease, but from different causes.
>>But if we can start modifying things to change how the clone develops<<
The thought of that is terrible. Are you suggesting we breed a clone and then, when it's a child, start experimenting with it's genetics to see what happens? Or even experimenting with them before the birth? What happens when some of those experiments go horribly wrong? Are you gonna be the one to tell another human being that they will be malformed for life because of a messed up experiment?
I find it stange that people would be mortified if the government started randomly selecting children to go away for bio weapons research testing yet they would consent to human beings being bred purely for experimentation.
I am not fundamentally against cloning. I'm not worried about a clone army or any rubbish like that. But look what's happened to Dolly, she had a terrible life. I never want to see a human being go through that as part of an experiment. People that say 'oh well we will perfect the science before making any human clones', quite frankly, I don't believe it's possible.
people say that we'll perfect the science before we clone humans, but the fact is there are doctors in italy that have claimed to have a cloned human, i mean come on, what could we learn from cloning, genetic engineering and cloning are different so if youre going to say we could cure disease by cloning, you'd better back up how.
>>if youre going to say we could cure disease by cloning, you'd better back up how.<<
I didn't say we would, some other dude did, I quoted.
>>people say that we'll perfect the science before we clone humans, but the fact is there are doctors in italy that have claimed to have a cloned human<<
Yeah and when Dolly was born, people said 'oh look they have cloned a sheep, cloning must work'. Then a few years later it starts having growth deformaties, premature arthritis etc. And now it's had to be put down. I don't call that a success and I don't belive anyone who says we can perfect the art of cloning humans before a single human is cloned. I am ALL for the furthering of science, I am after all an engineer. But experiments on humans who haven't consented, especially before they are born is absolutely wrong in my opinion.
On a side note, I don't know what the rush is to clone people. I mean everyone is different and unique. That is one of the things that is so great about nature.
ok well two points:
1 - cloning IS genetic engineering
2 - it's not going to stop
3 - Hey silly I said there's only two points
Alot of good points, particuarly the point minesweep made about over-running the earths population be ridding disease...i see diseases, some, as a form of natural selection so to speak.
Maybe he sow Star Wars, Attach of the clones.Quote:
Originally posted by Travis Dane
You've played too much "Red Alert 2 Yuri's revenge":p
I don't really think it's going to be used in wars.
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.Quote:
i see diseases, some, as a form of natural selection so to speak.
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.
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.
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.
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 :pQuote:
Did that weird US cult not already clone a human?
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
close this thread, close this thread, close this thread, close this thread, ^ infinity
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.
"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 :)
Yes I'm a madman but that story has alot in common withQuote:
society will keep it in check more or less except for maybe a madman or two.
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.
Now everyone should know that these people are madman butQuote:
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".
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 )
I disagree, earth sustains life with life, how is that not alive??Quote:
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.
Come again? Earth is earth, It's not alive. There are other beingsQuote:
Originally posted by RoD
I disagree, earth sustains life with life, how is that not alive??
living ON the earth, the earth is not responsible for that.
>>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.Quote:
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
"I disagree, earth sustains life with life, how is that not alive??"
"Earth" does NOT "sustain life with life", (if anything you would say that the SUN sustains life with radiation, does that make the sun alive too?) The "Earth" doesn't "do" anything the laws of physics "do" everything. The Earth is just another planet like Mars, Venus etc. etc.
"the earth has everything to do w/life"
Ok...
"if the earth was just a rock and couldnt sustain life"
Right, but if it were a bunch of rocks with a whole load of chemical and physical processes going on (which it is) it would.
"the things that the earth has done over eons of time has helped every living thing on the planet"
The "Earth" has not "done" anything, the laws of PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY have shaped the Earth, and as such have created an environment where it was possible for life to form.
"now does the earth have conciousness...?"
No.
>>if anything you would say that the SUN sustains life with radiation, does that make the sun alive too?
then define life? what makes something living?
energy = life...
earth = energy...
earth = life.
There are several facts that the earth is alive
1. Birth.
2. Death
3. Attracts better than most men.
4. It's center is warm but it's outside is cold.
5. Blood flows through it.
6. Some spots have acne.
IMVHO, life is the ability for a combination of substances to control chemical reactions for the benefit of itself.
Although probably not what you would see in a text book, it fits my needs well.
"then define life? what makes something living?"
There are a great many defintions of life floating around, the one i like best is:
Life is a chemical system capable of replication and mutation.
Ultimately the word "life" is a description of a set of physical phenomena, how we choose to define it is somewhat irrelevent as long as there is general acceptance on what the term means in real terms:
Most people accept that a bird flying above the treetops is alive whilst a rock is not.
Kangaroos exist ON the Earth but the Earth itself is not alive, fish exist IN the sea, but the sea itself is not alive, life exists in the solar system but the solar system is not alive.
If you start defining the Earth as living, then you end up defining EVERYTHING as alive and the word loses all meaning.
"energy = life"
Uh.. no. Energy = The potential to do work.
"earth = energy"
Uh ok, but then, the Sun = energy, a photon = energy, a molecule of oxygen = energy, everything in fact = energy.