It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2008 approved the sale of food from clones and their offspring, stating the products are indistinguishable from that of their non-clone counterparts. Japan, the European Union, and others have followed suit. The moves have stirred controversy about whether tinkering with nature is safe, or even ethical, prompting major food companies to swear off food products from cloned animals. But consumers are likely already eating meat and drinking milk from the offspring of clones, which are technically not clones, without even knowing it.
Farmers can now use cloning and other assisted breeding technologies to breed cows that produce bigger, better steaks or massive amounts of milk, and animals that resist diseases or reproduce with clockwork precision. Premier genes can translate to improved feeding efficiency, meaning the ability to convert the least amount of feed into the most meat or milk, which results in a smaller environmental footprint.
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by 2manyquestions
Your title reminds me of the book, Animal Farm.
I do not see cloning, nor the eating of cloned animals as ethical, it is the antithesis of society.
It is the seeds of destruction of our very society in that if we release this to happen, then laws are enabled to allow human cloning, and once human cloning is allowed, cross-species breeding is allowed, and then we get the Island of Dr Moreau.
The Island of Dr Moreau
So, if we sew in the seeds of our destruction, then be not surprised if we are destroyed.
Originally posted by 2manyquestions
reply to post by hippomchippo
While I think you've got a valid point, these things have to start somewhere. We may be very far off from creating the Island of Dr. Moreau, but as science makes progress, I know that scientists are thinking of new possibilities.
I remember seeing a program on the Discovery channel a few years ago that suggested scientists were thinking about creating humans ideal to work in zero gravity, in space stations. They discussed how humans such as these would not need legs, and instead would be given four arms/hands to move around. There were other differences mentioned which I can't remember, but the four arms feature stuck with me the most. It was disturbing to listen to especially back then. Who knows what they're working on these days and what we'll find out 10-20 years from now.
Quote from : Cloning : Human Cloning
Human cloning Main article:
Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing or previously existing human.
The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.
There are two commonly discussed types of human cloning: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.
Therapeutic cloning involves cloning adult cells for use in medicine and is an active area of research. Reproductive cloning would involve making cloned humans.
A third type of cloning called replacement cloning is a theoretical possibility, and would be a combination of therapeutic and reproductive cloning.
Replacement cloning would entail the replacement of an extensively damaged, failed, or failing body through cloning followed by whole or partial brain transplant.
The various forms of human cloning are controversial.
There have been numerous demands for all progress in the human cloning field to be halted.
Most scientific, governmental and religious organizations oppose reproductive cloning.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and other scientific organizations have made public statements suggesting that human reproductive cloning be banned until safety issues are resolved.
Serious ethical concerns have been raised by the future possibility of harvesting organs from clones.
Some people have considered the idea of growing organs separately from a human organism - in doing this, a new organ supply could be established without the moral implications of harvesting them from humans.
Research is also being done on the idea of growing organs that are biologically acceptable to the human body inside of other organisms, such as pigs or cows, then transplanting them to humans, a form of xenotransplantation.
The first human hybrid human clone was created in November 1998, by American Cell Technologies.
It was created from a man's leg cell, and a cow's egg whose DNA was removed. It was destroyed after 12 days.
Since a normal embryo implants at 14 days, Dr Robert Lanza, ACT's director of tissue engineering, told the Daily Mail newspaper that the embryo could not be seen as a person before 14 days.
While making an embryo, which may have resulted in a complete human had it been allowed to come to term, according to ACT: "[ACT's] aim was 'therapeutic cloning' not 'reproductive cloning'" On January, 2008, Wood and Andrew French, Stemagen's chief scientific officer in California, announced that they successfully created the first 5 mature human embryos using DNA from adult skin cells, aiming to provide a source of viable embryonic stem cells.
Dr. Samuel Wood and a colleague donated skin cells, and DNA from those cells was transferred to human eggs.
It is not clear if the embryos produced would have been capable of further development, but Dr. Wood stated that if that were possible, using the technology for reproductive cloning would be both unethical and illegal.
The 5 cloned embryos, created in Stemagen Corporation lab, in La Jolla, were destroyed.
We're still very far off making humans like that, and currently, cloning may provide a good source of cheap food with no known side effects, do you think we should stop this technology because someday far in the future, people might use it for unethical reasons?
Quote from : Wikipedia : The Island (1980)
The Island is a 1980 film concerning a centuries old colony of savage and isolated pirates who sustain themselves by raiding pleasure boats in the Caribbean.
Michael Caine plays a journalist named Blair Maynard who is captured with his son Justin but kept alive due to a false assumption regarding their lineage and a need to offset the negative effects of inbreeding.
Blair is used to impregnate a female and act as a scribe for the illiterate group while the son is brainwashed to become a surrogate heir by the pirate leader.
The movie was based on a novel of the same name by Peter Benchley who also wrote the screenplay.
Reviews were generally mixed to negative, the film performed poorly at the box office despite a large $22,000,000 budget and highly regarded director and was heavily disliked by its late co-star Frank Middlemass.
However, since then it has gained a cult following from Michael Caine and Peter Benchley fans with a request for it to be released on DVD.
The United States Coast Guard cutter Dauntless stands in for the fictitious USCGC New Hope in the movie.
Quote from : Wikipedia : The Island (2005)
The Island is a 2005 science fiction film directed by Michael Bay and starring Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson.
It was released on July 11, 2005 in the US. It was nominated for 3 awards including the Teen Choice award.
It is described as a pastiche of "escape-from-dystopia" science fiction films of the 1960s and 1970s such as Fahrenheit 451, THX 1138, Parts: The Clonus Horror, and Logan's Run.
Set in 2019, the movie's plot revolves around the struggle of Ewan McGregor's character to fit into the highly structured world he lives in, and the action-packed series of events that unfolds when he questions exactly how truthful that world really is.
The film, which cost $126 million to produce, earned only $36 million at the United States box office, but earned $127 million overseas, for a $163 million worldwide total.
Amazon Review :
Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed is the glass-half-empty follow-up to his Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel.
While Guns, Germs, and Steel explained the geographic and environmental reasons why some human populations have flourished, Collapse uses the same factors to examine why ancient societies, including the Anasazi of the American Southwest and the Viking colonies of Greenland, as well as modern ones such as Rwanda, have fallen apart.
Not every collapse has an environmental origin, but an eco-meltdown is often the main catalyst, he argues, particularly when combined with society's response to (or disregard for) the coming disaster.
Still, right from the outset of Collapse, the author makes clear that this is not a mere environmentalist's diatribe.
He begins by setting the book's main question in the small communities of present-day Montana as they face a decline in living standards and a depletion of natural resources.
Once-vital mines now leak toxins into the soil, while prion diseases infect some deer and elk and older hydroelectric dams have become decrepit.
On all these issues, and particularly with the hot-button topic of logging and wildfires, Diamond writes with equanimity.
Because he's addressing such significant issues within a vast span of time, Diamond can occasionally speak too briefly and assume too much, and at times his shorthand remarks may cause careful readers to raise an eyebrow.
But in general, Diamond provides fine and well-reasoned historical examples, making the case that many times, economic and environmental concerns are one and the same.
With Collapse, Diamond hopes to jog our collective memory to keep us from falling for false analogies or forgetting prior experiences, and thereby save us from potential devastations to come.
While it might seem a stretch to use medieval Greenland and the Maya to convince a skeptic about the seriousness of global warming, it's exactly this type of cross-referencing that makes Collapse so compelling.
Originally posted by veranda
I just think if we are eating anything cloned, it should be on the label. We have a right to be notified, at the very least.
They can ignore the controversy and chow down with abandon, or they can quiz each of their grocery stores, restaurants and dinner hosts about their policy on using food developed with cloning. That's because, unless Congress intervenes, regulators have decided that the products require no special labeling....
Wary of consumer backlash, some large grocers and restaurant operators say they plan to shun such products – whether from clones or their offspring – and will make sure their suppliers help them keep that vow....
Some owners of cloned animals said they have sold semen to other breeders, increasing the chance that some milk or meat from the offspring of clones already has found its way into the food chain, said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports.