Britians first dog cloned after 60,000 contest .

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   
that's if there is enough time to grow the clone before the original dies from whatever is wrong.

takes 9 months to be born.

and would a baby kidney be able to function and grow in an adult? for example.
======================================================================
for the doggie in the op, seems a little over the top, to me to do that.

would it even have the same personality?

i'm ok for exploring the tech, it can be helpful.

but whole copies of a pet that there is no shortage of, waste of time and money.

imo.




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


that is why your parents could do it for you.
it would be almost like you have twin brother except he wouldn't be your brother.
I doubt someone would try to make clone after they learned about the disease, they are smart enough to do it before.
health insurance - the best.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

tsingtao
that's if there is enough time to grow the clone before the original dies from whatever is wrong.

takes 9 months to be born.


My sentiment exactly.. for this to be viable, they'd need to clone you at birth and store the clone in some sort of clone warehouse full of other clones on ventilators and machines to keep your blood flowing, since without a head/brain you wouldn't be able to survive without being on full life support..

Imagine the cost of that! ... that would be way more expensive than obamacare



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


Ok... so cloned pets are on the menu are they?

Well, first off the bat, it is a poor idea, psychologically speaking, for a person to have their pet cloned when their original dies. The reason being, is that determining to do so speaks to an inability to cope with, or even attempt to deal with, feelings of loss. They are horrible feelings, that much is certain, but dealing with them is necessary for the mental health of the person afflicted by loss, absolutely essential.

Building up a fantasy and having it reinforced in the manner which would surely result from a refurbished, never ending dog or cat, would in my view be a terrible thing. It would be a horrid state of affairs to find oneself in, if in the future, lives are valued differently because they are easily replaced. That would be a wasteful, and awful thing to see.

However, this whole idea that some people on this thread have been having, about cloning whole bodies so that parts from a new one, can be inserted into an old one, is pure rubbish, and would be hideously inefficient. Body parts can ALREADY be grown whole, and in a laboratory using stem cells. No surrogates are necessary, no birth, and no body. Just the bits. Parts can be grown to order, so wasting resources by cloning up a whole body for a person would be a grossly stupid idea. Organs grown in laboratories, have already been fitted to human beings after all. Some lady had her trachea replaced by a lab grown section, grown from her own stem cells.

Using stem cells of the target patient, from which to grow the new parts, ensures that there will be no tissue rejection issues, which would be a risk with parts transplanted from some other persons body, and have none of the draw backs, namely the cloning and bringing to maturation, of entire biological organisms, just so that spare parts can be acquired.

To show you how stupid the idea of cloning a whole person for parts would be, lets take this simple example. When one is having trouble getting parts for a 1960s Mark II Ford Escort, one does not decide to build a whole new Escort, and then reap its parts. One merely finds or fabricates the parts one needs, and gets on with it. In the same way, there is no need to grow entire human bodies in order that parts be available, because with an awful lot less fuss, and much less waste, new parts can be grown to order, as and when required.
edit on 10-4-2014 by TrueBrit because: Detail addition, grammar and punctuation correction, and all round fail removal initiatives.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


If they want to clone animals just for the sake of it to boost their ego, with no real benefit, then I say 'No'.

However, if they want to clone endangered species to help preserve them, then by all means 'Yes'.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Cloning has been going on for quite a while outside of the US, I pretty much believe personally that black budget in the US have a portion for this type of scientific research away from the public eye and religious rights

Supposedly the first baby cloned was born in 2002 under secrecy and it was a female named Eve, now many arguments have been done on this first cloning and even been call a fraud as no really much information has been given on the issue.

First cloned baby

www.newscientist.com...

China and Russia has claimed in numerous occasion of cloning animals also, I see this type of cloning more scientific and leaning to profit making.

How can we forget Dolly (sheep) in 1996, so cloning is been ongoing for quite a while.

When it comes to human I may be outdated but while I believe science is an important part of our modern society, creating humans does have some repercussions that can become dangerous in the long run.

I also believe that cloning of humans is more advance that we may have geared to believe or it has prove to be so heinous on the results that is not wonder is kept secret.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

miniatus

tsingtao
that's if there is enough time to grow the clone before the original dies from whatever is wrong.

takes 9 months to be born.


My sentiment exactly.. for this to be viable, they'd need to clone you at birth and store the clone in some sort of clone warehouse full of other clones on ventilators and machines to keep your blood flowing, since without a head/brain you wouldn't be able to survive without being on full life support..

Imagine the cost of that! ... that would be way more expensive than obamacare


better than just raise them WITH head, provide limited environment to them and take care of them so they don't get sick.

maybe then, they could take your kidney to heal themselves if opportunity arises.

that would be interesting turn of events!



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Just what the world needs, more dog crap to walk in.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Cloning.

What is cloning anyway, and have movies about the subject been honest and truthful about it?

To me, it all pertains to biological factors. In the hollywtf-movie, if someone dies, he can be 'resurrected' as the new clone, and remembers having died this or that many times.

This is of course nonsense. That's not how it works, and you can't 'become immortal' just by cloning. A clone will have a different soul from yours.

It's amazing, that no one in this thread has yet looked at this from the perspective of the SOUL, only from the perspective of biology.

I mean, what does it matter -how- a body is manufactured/born/created, as long as a soul can incarnate into it? And it's that soul that is the human, not the body. Animal soul structure is less advanced (I made a long post about what I think animal souls are a long time ago, so you can find it somewhere in ATS, if you really want to know about this in more detail), so it matters even less. Of course the 'personality' would not be the same, but animals don't really have a personality per se.

Now a lot of dog-owners and other pet-worshippers start screaming that their pet definitely has a personality, et cetera. What I mean is, that they are animals first, species second, breed third, and only then they are 'the name' (which they really aren't).

Humans see dogs as 'name' first, then 'breed' (if the dog is lucky), then .. 'human'! They don't even see them as animals, and they ignore their animal-species-breed-specific needs, and just give the dogs 'name'-specific fulfillment. Instead of exercize, discipline, affection, they just give 'affection, affection, affection', as Cesar Millan tends to say.

Animals live in the moment, and they mostly -react-. They don't rationalize, and they don't ponder the future or try to relive the past. They do have their invididualistic quirks and things (which are usually just symptoms created by humans mistreating them that the owners find 'cute' or 'adorable'), but basically, to the same stimuli, the same animal will pretty much react the same. They might manifest that reaction differently, but a dog can't be decide whether he's scared of fire or whether he tries to control unstable energy in another dog or a human being, unless he is specifically trained not to. In that sense, they don't have 'personalities', that would be completely different than all other dogs. A dog can't be disinterested about food and walking, for example (except as a symptom of having been mistreated by humans, but that's not 'personality', that's a problem). It can't choose to become interested in astronomy or programming in C++. It can't thus really develop a true 'personality'. (There are exceptions, that I explained in the post I mentioned before, that happen when a dog is living its last incarnation as an animal, before incarnating as human the first time - when the other half of his soul has joined the half that is still living in the dog body (when other dog died, of course), and that's when we encounter dogs that 'seem to understand everything we tell them' and 'who seem so human' - but other than those exceptions, a dog really has no 'personality').

Now, I used dogs as examples, but the basic principles of course apply to pretty much any animals (just remember that dolphins and whales, for example, are not animals).

So, cloning a BODY, as long as it is a functional and healthy body, and as long as a soul can incarnate in it normally, shouldn't be a problem of any signifigance, as long as it is done ethically (without injuring, harming or hurting any living being in any way, and especially humans without their consent).

Though I don't see what the benefit of cloning is, when you can just overpopulate the planet with bratty kids (that the parents have no clue how to raise correctly, despite Supernanny and Jo Frost's teachings), idiot humans (no comment there) or out-of-control animals (that the pet-'owners' don't know how to raise, treat or control properly, despite Dog Whisperer and Cesar Millan's teachings) as much as you want with the natural method already, besides creating humans that look exactly alike, so that they can be used for evil purposes by TPTB (which is what ATS should be all about anyway - discussing the conspiracies, not just this everyday clone-chat).

IF, however, you can do cloning, like they do it in SCI-FI and the reality of other planets, then that's different.

In my opinion, what they call 'cloning', isn't really what cloning truly is. So it still takes a long time, and it still means you are using wombs, and you still need to use sperm and whatnot. Just seems like a more cumbersome way to achieve what could be achieved with the natural method anyway.

What my idea of cloning is, that you take someone, an adult human being, and in a few minutes, you can just create an identical copy of him/her. The problem, of course, is again, SOUL. Will you invite someone to incarnate this adult human being (pretty unnaturally, I may add), or will you leave it without a soul altogether? Will you make it remote-controllable, or are you planning to somehow create self-awareness without a soul (impossible, despite what "The Terminator (1984)"'s plot says)? Or are you going to expand the original owner's soul, so that now this one soul controls two bodies? Or are you going to transfer the soul inbetween bodies, depending on what you need to do, and thus making long-distance travels very convenient and fast?

Or are the clones mere projections of the original individual, that the individual can control at will, and which can then just be joined back to the original (like in ninja games or some E.T. allegedly-true-stories)? Is the clone going to be a 'biological, programmable robot', or ..

Well, as can be seen, my ideas of cloning differ from this boring planet's boring views, but I wanted to bring this thread different perspectives that (I felt) it desperately needed.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
One more point..

In movies, clones are always shocked to find out they are "just clones", and "not real", and very depressed about it, and then they start finding weird rationalizations for their existence.

In reality, if you have a soul, why would it matter, whether the body you inhabit is a 'clone' or a 'naturally-born-one'? You are still you, the body shouldn't matter (as long as it's functional and healthy). The movie plots never take this into account. They explain that somehow, without a soul, a clone can just develop sentience, make decisions, feel emotions, and whatnot. Which is of course impossible in reality. Souls are not just some plastic bags that can be tossed aside - they are consciousness and life itself. Without souls, there is no sentience, emotions, or even pain.

Purely biological entity or organ can not feel pain. This is why abortions are perfectly ethical, if done correctly.

The soul is only visiting an embryo, not yet permanently attached to it. It visits it to get used to it, like you might visit a new apartment a few times before making a decision to buy it, or test drive a new car a couple of times before getting used to how it handles and deciding to get it.

Sometimes it does not feel comfortable, and the soul doesn't like it, and thus decides to leave it permanently. This is how and why we have 'miscarriages'. The embryo just stops all evolution, and no soul visits it anymore - and the body exits it, as it's no longer needed.

The soul permanently attaches the 'silver cord' to the embryo / baby, at the moment of first breath (which I think is to empty the lungs, not the breath to fill the lungs). Only after that, abortion becomes a murder. Not before.

I mean, when the soul is not visiting the embryo, there is no one inside the embryo to feel any pain. The embryo can't be murdered, because the soul isn't permanently attached anyway. So abortion is never murder, but it can be distressing to a visiting soul, if done incorrectly and at the wrong time - the soul should not be visiting the embryo when abortion is done.

(But luckily, it can escape extremely quickly)

So, a dead body, or a soulless embryo, is incapable of feeling any pain. You can shoot a dead body with a shotgun to the groin, and it will not groan or moan in pain. It's not going to get shocked. It's not in any kind of pain. It's just biological mass at that point. And rotting becomes immediately after life (=soul) leaves the body. And yet the deniers still can't create life in laboratories or raise the dead. If the deniers were correct, it would be always possible to revitalise a dead body back to life. But it has never been done, because the body is never truly alive, the soul is the only thing KEEPING it sort-of-alive. And we are never really dead, because the soul does not die (even Einstein realized this, after figuring out that energy can't be destroyed).

For these reasons, a clone-bodied human being should not have any identity crisis - they just incarnated to a body that was manufactured in a different way than usual, THAT'S ALL. So the stories about clones being depressed are groan-inducingly ridiculous to me.

But it IS alarming, how little of the soul is talked about these days, and how little human beings, who ARE souls, know about their true selves. But that goes beyond the scope of this tiny post.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoujikina
 


Actually they are finding out all the time that some animals are closer in intelligence to us then we previously thought. That there's an intellegence latter that were at the top of...Theres not a defined line between reasoning and not.


There's no proof at all that a soul matters.

In fact I think of cloning as the chance to disprove religion. According to religion, just as you stated, God gives us our soul. Well if sucessful cloning is done. With the clone waking up normal, IMHO that would disprove the soul theory. If a soul is needed a clone either shouldn't wake up, or should be evil.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

pookle
Just what the world needs, more dog crap to walk in.


This is a bit off-topic, I presume. But I want to reply to this, so please bear with me.

Yes, it IS amazing how much people will tolerate decadence and defecation, littering, trash, cigarette smoking and cigarette stubs, spit (even this has been a problem in some places, like bus stops sometimes) and bad behaviour.

But what else can be expected from a race of beings that cannot raise or treat their children properly (so the kids become noisy demons instead of balanced and obedient, happy children), cannot raise or treat their pets properly (so the dogs, for example, become problematic in many ways, even those who are not barking too much or attacking people and other animals), and have accepted dozens of wrong and destructive values.

This world is populated by denizens who do not care about keeping things comfortable, clean and user-friendly for everyone, but litter, throw trash and cigarette stumps anywhere, talk loud on their cell phones about their private matters in crowded subway trains and buses without taking others into account.

During the winter, the dog owners let their precious, wrong-treated pets defacate and urinate in the middle of the narrow snow pathways, so there's a huge amount of that disgusting, smelly substance in the middle of the streets and especially nature pathways. And when the snows melt, they let their dogs do whatever they want (like usual), and thus now the dogs of course want to conquer the sides of the streets and paths. So the WHOLE area is completely covered.

It's amazing that with all the pretense of 'civilization', this kind of dog-ownership is considered NORMAL, and no one sees any problem in letting a huge amount of carnivorous beasts urinate and defacate pretty much everywhere, where humans are supposed to be able to walk (especially nature), even though dog parks exist.

It's one of those very amazing things about this planet and its warped denizens that I will probably never completely understand, and that continue shocking me from time to time. If it was the only one, it would be still horrific, and bad enough, but.. the more shocking bit is that there is almost a whole PLETHORA (or at least three quarters of a plethora) of others. And they reach every facet and aspect of life - these creatures are not WISE BEINGS in _ANY_ aspect of life!

And THAT is pretty amazing to me.. you'd think that even the dumbest of braindamaged, glue-sniffing hicks, would have common sense in at least SOME area of life (like some bullies and thugs can be called 'streetwise', if not any other '-wise').

But .. no. There's no sparkle of light in their souls.. just droning on as usual, letting their kids and dogs do whatever they want, and giving even discipline completely inconsistently ("Well.. maybe just this once..")

The sooner this world ends, the better - even for the curious denizens that have populated this once such a pretty gem of a planet, and now toilet for dogs and a rubbish dump for smokers, among other things.

(Sorry, it seems that given enough time, all my posts devolve into a rant about the odd half-animals of Terra - it would be easier if I didn't have to exist among them, I guess..)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
So how did that dachshund get to BE a dachshund in the first place? Dogs are descendants of wolves, right? And after many generations those "wolves" became domesticated enough to tolerate. And after who knows how many generations we get everything from Afghan hounds to poodles to dachshunds.

And for that matter we get all sorts of pigs, cows, horses, and goats that look nothing like their ancestors. We have genetically manipulated every one of those creatures to better serve us. They didn't get the way they are on their own. We circumvented nature and made them the way WE wanted them. It used to be we did so in order for them to help us. We bred fighting dogs or herding dogs. We bred draught horses or quarter horses because they were good at what we wanted them to do.

But today we breed animals for artistic reasons. From toy poodles to ocicats, from designer pigs to glow-in-the-dark rabbits, we have manipulated genes simply for aesthetics. We breed them to look cool.

And you're getting all "ethical" on us because of clones? All "ethics" means is that you take your own socio-cultural biases, pretend they are lofty, and force other people to adhere to them.

If people want to clone a dog, they need not answer to people here on ATS who decide to psychoanalyze their motives. If you want to house only rescue dogs from shelters, be a vegan, or use non-clumping cat litter, knock yourself out. But don't tell other people what to do.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoujikina
 


Actually it's the dog poop that's natural... Not the sidewalk with the narrow snow path....





top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join