It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fight to clone a human.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
An army of cloned humans...hmm interesting...
Would be interesting to see what or how it would act, speak, react.

I'd like to see this happen.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Luc Picard
 


They're not fully grown humans they're embryos, or maybe you were joking i have no idea as i havn't slept today



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
The irony of this all is we are battling overpopulation in some countries.


Show me one where overpopulation is the main crisis?


We are heading for a world where there will not be enough food for the masses.


Oh there has always been enough food but it's never been distributed properly! Food production have consistently expanded for a long time and when we take into account the expansion of cash crops ( that are mostly generated on land that could be used for food production) we could feed twice as many people without breaking much of a sweat. With the technologies that have been on the books for over a century this world could have easily sustained tens of billions of people today without doing any more ecological damage than we are today. As with most things it's simply a question of organization.


We hand out birth control to the masses in underprivileged countries and here we want to produce human in a lab. hmmmm... what's next?


A fast growing world population never has and never will be the problem as more human beings simply means more organizational power over our environment. When such abilities are squandered by a reigning economic system there really is no reason to blame the people who are first to suffer the consequences of inefficiency.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ariana9
I read somewhere that in the UK, the scientists want to creat chimeras.


I do believe they are.

Infact if we're correct the research will be being carried out not 50 miles from where i live, so if anything happens and an enraged snake-elephant escapes i'll be sure to post the details on ATS.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
Yes, there are differences, but in tests so far the advantages of adult stem cells outweigh the disadvantages many fold. The biggest 'problem' with adult stem cells is that they do not have the differentiation potential of embryonic stem cells. That is, it is harder to get an adult stem cell to become as many different cells as it is an embryonic stem cell.

The major difficulty with embryonic stem cells when considering the idea of organ replacement technology (which is most of the excitement on the research front) is that the organs are not those of the recipient and do not contain his/her DNA. The organs are no different than an organ from a donor, and run the same risk of rejection. If the organs are grown from adult stem cells, donated by the person in need of an organ, the new organ is not rejected, because it contains identical DNA.

The problem with cell differentiation is overcomeable as well using adult stem cells. New techniques are showing major advances in our knowledge of how to turn these stem cells into different types of cells, It is not impossible, therefore, to overcome the disadvantages of adult stem cells, only difficult. When we look at the main disadvantage of embryonic stem cells, rejection of the new organs, the problem has existed since the beginning of organ replacement therapy and is still a major consideration today, despite no shortage of research into organ rejection. Unless a new breakthrough happens, the problem with embryonic stem cells is impossible to overcome (and any new breakthrough on this front would not be associated with the embryonic stem cell research, but with organ rejection research).

It's simply a matter of time before we will have this technology available to all of us. But the more we argue over a less-promising yet more controversial avenue of research, the more researchers will waste precious time (and lives) trying to change public opinion when they could be working toward a breakthrough without an agenda other than to help others.

But, maybe the progression of science is not their true agenda. Only in that case does this fascination with embryonic technology make sense.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ariana9
I read somewhere that in the UK, the scientists want to creat chimeras.


/yes but again these aren't fully grown chimeras and the media keeps sending up this scare story. They're embryos with some other animals cells injected that are destroyed at around 2 weeks of age. They are not exactly dangerous, they will not be bred and allowed to live. Perfectly safe, will help us understand more about cell development and genetic transmission.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

But, maybe the progression of science is not their true agenda. Only in that case does this fascination with embryonic technology make sense.

TheRedneck



Perhaps because at some point we might get to a stage whereby embryonic cells can be manufactured.

Like i said, reducing the human body to nothing other than an product to be brought or sold at the owner's whim.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
Hmmm, manufactured stem cells? That would present an interesting debate, if it were possible. Without further insight into such a concept, I am not sure where I'd come down on that... probably cautiously optimistic.

But you do get my point, AT. When human life is reduced to a commodity (as has been happening over the last half-century at an alarming rate), we become just another product ourselves, to be bought, sold, used, and discarded like a dishrag.

That's a high price for scientific advancement.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I don't get where you're coming from because we are not reducing ourselves to commodities. These are not humans they are small cells, you cannot compare a living human being to a small collection of cells in a petrie dish! If science started experimenting on fully formed and concious humans against their will, then i would be just as concerned as you.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Hmmm, manufactured stem cells? That would present an interesting debate, if it were possible.


Of course it's possible.

We just have to clone the bloody clones!



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

These are not humans they are small cells, you cannot compare a living human being to a small collection of cells in a petrie dish!


That "small collection of cells" has the potential to BECOME a human!

It IS HUMAN, it has human DNA!

It is 100% human!

Why can't you get your head round that?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Because although it has the potential to be a human it will never get the chance so it's not human in my view. Also just because it's a fertilized egg and has human DNA it just isn't a human until it can express or experience human emotions. So basically until it pops out and calls me dad it isn't human. That's of course an exaggeration, but i'm just trying to emphasis my point. You're equating a small collection of cels to a fully grown human, that to me seems wrong somehow, unless you believe a soul is infused at the point of conception, however i don't.

Again if my sperm were used to fertilize these eggs and they destroyed at 14 days, i wouldn't feel i had lost a child, it wouldn't even cross my mind. I'm not callous or anything like that, i just don't see a small collection of cells, which will never get a chance to be a human, which would of been thrown in an incinerator anyway to be human.

These eggs would have been dumped into a furnace so we may as well get some use out of them, they're unwanted, not needed.

EDIT

Oh and if you say that these small collections of cells are human then masterbation could almost be called murder. Afterall you're killing the potential for creating a life.

Note that was meant to be slightly tongue in cheek.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
Zygote
Embryo
Fetus
Tissue Culture

An embryo is not a collection of cells in a petri dish (a tissue culture). You are referring to a zygote, in which case I would agree with you. The zygote is nothing more than pure stem cells, each one ready to develop into a different type of cell to form the different parts of a human.

The embryo is formed when the zygote begins differentiating into different cellular types and cellular functioning as components of a whole begins. There is a brain, a heart, lungs, intestines, eyes, etc. These organs may not be functional in the earlier stages, but they do exist and are developing into functional systems.

Since you are intent on bringing it up, the question of ethics from my perspective concerns not when life begins (it doesn't, it never ends; there is no point at which the sperm, egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus is not alive), when it is human (again, there is no point where any human cells have developed into anything else), but rather when sentience begins. At which point can the developing child feel pain and experience self-awareness? We have no answer to this, and in the absence of reliable data, yes, I tend to err on the side of caution.

I still contend that this is a moot point, since there are other, more reliable means to obtain better stem cells which carry no controversy and no hindrance to research. Why are you arguing for the right to bang your head against a brick wall, when there is an open door ten feet down? Wouldn't it be easier and simpler to walk through the door?

TheRedneck

Edit to add:

So basically until it pops out and calls me dad it isn't human.


Yes, I know you meant this tongue-in-cheek, but this is exactly why I try to stay away from the morality issue. I am actually greatly impressed with the advances being made in stem cell research, and would consider the stopping of such research to be a crime against humanity. I also believe in the right of every living thing to survive, including any developing child which has the above-referenced sentience. So when I first heard of stem cell research, I was torn between two conflicting positions. When I discovered the truth about the research and the fact that adult stem cells are actually being used to cure disease while embryonic stem cells have not yielded such promising results, I realized my conflict was unwarranted.

Yet, it is very easy for humans as a society to harden stances, especially those which touch deep moral values. I have no objection to using human tissue cultures for research; that would be a ridiculous position IMHO. I am also strongly opposed to partial-birth abortions, for what I think are obvious reasons. In between we have a gray area which bears consideration from objective viewpoints. Yet when we ignore controversies, we invite hardened opinions from society which will serve to hinder progress.

I want the progress, I just want it to be unhindered and acceptable to societal values... ALL societal values.

TheRedneck


[edit on 10-6-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


It has nothing to do with the soul (although it'd make my work a helluva lot easier if it did, even if i don't believe in a personal God or anything like that), it has to do with the fact that at a base level, those cells are human.

As such, you could say that there was already a price on human cells.

Hell - this all started a long time before cloning spare parts was even mentioned.

Even 20 years ago people were buying and selling organs on the black market, so you can't deny that the human body hasn't been turned into an object with monetary value.

How much do you think a human stomach would cost, or even a heart?

Sooner or later, those things are going to get a price tag attached to them, one that's official.

And then of course, what was once illegal will become legal, although with a remarkably hefty price tag that can only probably be afforded by the rich and famous.

Even if it doesn't get as bad as i'm speculating it will be, i sincerely doubt that any 'normal folk' will be able to make use of this technology without first selling their soul and their property to be able to purchase the required product.

I for one think that yes, human rights should be applied to clones - at least then it will mean that everyone will be able to use them (provided we don't stick a brain in there, of course).



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

provided we don't stick a brain in there, of course


Well, based on the fact that we have a population of what? 6 billion? and apparently most of them need a brain, so the laws of supply and demand state.... HOLY C**P! I know where I'm investing next!


(Just thought some lighthearted humor could help about right now)

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


So cheesy.



But yes, i agree, i do happen to think that an awful lot of people aren't putting their brains to good use - maybe we should make some sort of clone and educate him to be intelligent.

That'll show em'.


-----breaking news-----

Dwayne X66, the world's stupidest clone, has cracked a puzzle that left his host puzzled.

In a statement, Dwayne 1.0 said "Wow, i'm really that smart?".

In other news, the clone riots in Washington have trashed several government labs, apparently in order to procure the machinery which is nessecary to clone organs for medical use.

---- Cue news flash ----

It's like robots making robots, but clones making clones.



[edit on 10-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Since you are intent on bringing it up, the question of ethics from my perspective concerns not when life begins (it doesn't, it never ends; there is no point at which the sperm, egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus is not alive), when it is human (again, there is no point where any human cells have developed into anything else), but rather when sentience begins. At which point can the developing child feel pain and experience self-awareness? We have no answer to this, and in the absence of reliable data, yes, I tend to err on the side of caution.


I am fully aware of teh differences between a zygote and an embryo thank you, however the organs you are talking of are little moe than a couple of cells. The brain in a 14 day old embryo is barely more than a thousand cells frm what i've read and is completely incapable of human level sentience. I wasn't intent on bringing anything up, the arguement against using embryonic stem cells seems to be that it's a human, my objection is that it's not concious and therefore perfectly acceptable to harvest it for cells as it isn't human in my view until it has a consciousness. With only a thousand or even a few thousand neurons, it cannot have conciousness.



Originally posted by TheRedneck

Yes, I know you meant this tongue-in-cheek, but this is exactly why I try to stay away from the morality issue. I am actually greatly impressed with the advances being made in stem cell research, and would consider the stopping of such research to be a crime against humanity. I also believe in the right of every living thing to survive, including any developing child which has the above-referenced sentience. So when I first heard of stem cell research, I was torn between two conflicting positions. When I discovered the truth about the research and the fact that adult stem cells are actually being used to cure disease while embryonic stem cells have not yielded such promising results, I realized my conflict was unwarranted.


But a 14 day old embryo is not sentient! I'm sorry but it's not. I believe in the right of everything to live, i don't even kill spiders in my house. They've reached their level of sentience so i find no reasont o be stamping on them. However what we're talking about is far from being mature, is not thinking like we do, if it's even aware at all and it's not because it doesn't have enough neurons.


The conflict is warranted because if you read your own links, especialy the third one to do with stem cells, it shows that both adult and embryonic stem cells have advantages and disadvantages at this current time. If adult stem cell research is prefected then i will be in complete agreement with you and they should stop using the embryonic ones. However our agreement wouldn't be needed as sicentists themselves would stop using them if there wern't a reason for it.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yet, it is very easy for humans as a society to harden stances, especially those which touch deep moral values. I have no objection to using human tissue cultures for research; that would be a ridiculous position IMHO. I am also strongly opposed to partial-birth abortions, for what I think are obvious reasons. In between we have a gray area which bears consideration from objective viewpoints. Yet when we ignore controversies, we invite hardened opinions from society which will serve to hinder progress.

I want the progress, I just want it to be unhindered and acceptable to societal values... ALL societal values.


Well that's where your problem lies, you will never be able to get something accepted by all of society, it's a very rare thing and on this issue society wil never agree as long as there are religious and atheistic people holding such opposite views.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Today theres a new article on the BBC's website about stem cells, how lucky
This article spells out what iw as trying to say, we're still needing to research both adult and embryonic stem cells for the time being.

news.bbc.co.uk...

From the article.


In their most potent form, in the embryo, they have the ability to create any tissue in the body, but cells with more limited, but still useful, abilities have been found in the organs of adults.


Emphasis is mine, the article is interesting and i think it shows we still need to use the embryonic cells. Don't get me wrong, on the day they find they no longer need to research with the emryonic ones i'll be right there asking them to stop. However if you read the article you'll find scientists themselves are already looking for ways so they don't have to use the embryonic ones. This shows science doesn't want to use them, they just have to, they don't like the moral outrage around it all and understandably so.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I wasn't intent on bringing anything up, the arguement against using embryonic stem cells seems to be that it's a human


Not from me, it's not:


That was my point, that they don't have to kill embryos in order to do the research. Adult stem cells carry no controversy with them and have been proven to be much, much more effective. They're also cheaper to produce.


The point I am arguing is that there are no advantages to using embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells. There are definite advantages to using adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells. So why are we even bringing up this debate over a technology that is shown by medical research to be inferior in stem cell research?


Yes, there are differences, but in tests so far the advantages of adult stem cells outweigh the disadvantages many fold.


I still contend that this is a moot point, since there are other, more reliable means to obtain better stem cells which carry no controversy and no hindrance to research.


All of the above are taken from my posts in this thread. Not once have I indicated that my objection was solely or even mostly due to a morality issue. The only time I have even brought the subject up was in response to you, and each time I tried to steer the debate back to where I thought it belonged: the scientific differences between the two types of stem cells available.

As for scientists making the decision, I am not satisfied to allow someone who may or may not have been a good student during college to make societal decisions in a vacuum. All it requires to become a 'scientist' is the ability to squeak by on university exams and the luck/contacts to get grant money for research. The degree is a symbol of knowledge, not one of wisdom, and there are many people who work at more mundane professions who have greater wisdom than the average scientist.

I highly doubt the BBC editor is a qualified scientist at all. My information is gathered from years of reading scientific journals written by scientists. Despite not having a degree, I can still read and consider the information that is gleaned from experimentation and research.

Also, you totally missed the point of my last post to you. Any time you try to force morality (from either side, mine or yours) onto an unwilling people, you do not gain results; you gain anger, hostility, and dissension. Notice I did not include progress in that list, because it will not be gained by such force.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Very Possible scenarios here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join