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.

 

Welcome to the Clone Farm

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Original Article Here


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.


I don't know what to think of it, or whether I should be concerned about eating clones. Sometimes I think that technology is so amazing and love seeing the progress, but on the other hand I always have to wonder whether these people have thought of every consequence resulting in manipulating nature to such an extent. Will they eventually manipulate livestock to the point where it will become visibly different from the natural livestock? Will it affect taste, texture, nutritional value,... and could it introduce dangerous new diseases in both livestock and humans? So much to think about.




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

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.

Cloning animals for food is alot different than fusing animals together with humans



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

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.

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?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Actually, you could be further from the truth.

Part 1 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Part 2 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Part 3 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Part 4 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Part 5 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Cloning is a lot further along than most people realize.


Quote from : Cloning : Human Cloning

Human cloning Main article:

Human cloning

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.


I highlighted the relevant part of the Wikipedia link.

This is already being worked on, and yes, while it is for transplanting specific body parts, like kidneys, hearts, livers, it can still be pushed further ahead.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   


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?


Eating cloned animals hasn't been around long enough to determine what health issues may arise from it for us and the animals in the future. It depends on how far and fast farmers/scientists will go to change the livestock.

Never did I suggest in my post that we should stop research and technology to prevent hypothetical unethical things from happening.
I only suggested that this technology provides one step closer to the possibility of such a thing happening. The more we learn about manipulating life, the closer we come to someone somewhere using the technology for unethical things. It is possible that in the future, somewhere in the world scientists with less ethical practices may try to create drastically hybrid humans or animals.

By today's ethical standards it may seem that creating hybrid humans is a terrible thing. Who knows how our minds will change in the future, and how such things will be justified. It's not like many societies around the world haven't become more lax about certain beliefs and behaviors. It's possible.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by 2manyquestions]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It is illegal now, but there is potential for a different scenario.

Ever seen the movie The Island?




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Also being discussed here:
Cloned Meat

Same article... but good discussion going on here...



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I have seen The Island and as well I have seen the one before it, called, The Island.


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.


Notice the description of the movie, how inbreeding was prevalent, and the original story plot was Michael Caine's character and son were estranged, the family unit self-destructing?

The end of the movie the family unit is strengthened.


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.


If you have seen The Island, the 2005 version, the family unit is all but destroyed via the usage of cloning to replace babies being born via surrogate mothers bearing children, and the clone is killed, therefore the destruction of an actual family unit is guaranteed for destruction, because the mother never went through actually bearing the child, the bonds of family integrity are broken.

As well the 2005 version is sort of reminiscent of a Logans Run, where they must escape the bubble-wrapped life and find Sanctuary, by finding their host bodies.

This is all wrapped up in the sci-fi genre in films as an indoctrination process for us to get accustomed to the idea of the destruction of the family unit, the coming of the cloning of mankind, and as well the Verichip/Digital Angel bio-chip tracking device.



I highly suggest the book :

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed


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.

--Jennifer Buckendorff


Jared Diamond Lecture : Almost 1 Hour Long


Clones, both human and animals, will not refuse a bio-chip tracking device.

Notice in the 2005 version of The Island wristbands are used, as tracking devices, like the alleged ones to be used to identify whether you have had your Swine Flu inoculation.

Remember, the Mark of the Beast will come, when pigs fly.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   

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.


Yeah, you're right. It would be nice to know. Then again I don't check labeling too often unless I'm specifically looking for organic food, for instance.

FDA approval means cloned meat could make it to dinner tables


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.



[edit on 19-11-2009 by 2manyquestions]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join