Anyone hear the news?

[morbid 0]

If mankind always took the "We're not supposed to do that" attitude we'd still be stuck in the stone age.

Besides, you can't learn anything if you refuse to try something.

On the subject of right and wrong: What is morally right and wrong is decided by humans anyway. It is subject to change and has changed over the years.

After all, it was once considered right by religious peoples to execute (in some suitably hideous way) non-believers such as me.

In fact, in some places it is still considered right to stone a women to death for adultry - it is more wrong to be unfaithul than it is to kill?

No way, but it does show that the moral values of human beings all over the world are NOT the same and do change.

So what makes you all think that mankind will still have the same moral values 100 years from now?

(I've gone horribly off-topic haven't I, sorry...)

[Major Fubar 0]

I only saw a little of this on TV, but from the interview I saw with the leader of this group, I strongly suspect that this is a hoax.

[Nagual 0]

I reckon stem cell stuff is very good, as it could lead to great discoveries. As for cloning, there doesn't seem much justification for it. That doesnt necessarily make it bad, things are generally neutral, and become good or bad depending on our personal view of the world.

As for the people invloved, well, it not like they don't have the technology or money, but, as it's the Raelians that are the folks behind it, the whole thing is suspect. Years ago i saw raelian cultists raising money to build an "alien embassy", one of the  requirements for the embassy was a nice big swimming pool (and spa, of course). So their motivations and ethics are highly questionable.

And i reckon that the first human cloning would never make it to mainstream public awareness, not a chance.

[morbid 0]

what would be good is if they could come up with a way of cloning individual organs.

Need a kidney? Grow a new one identical to your own (except perfectly healthy).

Heart disease? Grow a new heart (with the disease genes removed).

Thats one good reason for research into cloning.

But I don't believe it should ever go as far as cloning an entire human, theres simply no good reason for that other than to see if it works - which is not much of a reason at all.

[Renagade 0]

yes there is and u could even use all those dna samples the cops take wheen they bust someone to configure a super soldier.

IMO i reckon its beeen done alreeady in some lab

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The laws that the Bush administration came with are disasetrous IMO. They state that only private corporations may do stem cell research and genetical engineering on the human genome. <span id='postcolor'>

well if thats true it makes things interesting as theyd be able

to do research and also get patent rights for it so any good that comes out of it would come at a higher price.

[IceFire 0]

It's just that we are playing with our own humanity (We're not talking about machines or medicine) but the roots that make us who we are.

Somethings should be left to nature. We don't have the right to change something that would affect the fundamentals of our species. Or hell, any other species.

Our DNA is the result of everything that has occured since the beginning of life on earth. That is a very sacred thing.

[Guest]

Similar arguments were given when the first trains came. It was not natural for humans to travel that fast. A famous often quoted German doctor claimed that if people traveled over 30 km/h they would get serious brain injuries etc.

Unmotivated fear is no good reason to stop technolgical development.

The idea of the DNA being a very sacerd thing comes only from the fact that our knowledge in the area is new and therefor seems very revolutionary.

I do think however from an ecological point of view that we should advance carefully. The problem with today's system is that it isn't regulated and that there is a lack of proper test requirements. I think we need some standards for testing like there is for medicine. Right now it is very unregulated and genetically altered fruits and vegetables have been released without the proper examination. Its probably nothing, but I think that when we play with these fundamentals of nature that we should examine the ecological impacts first.

So I say yes to agressive research in the field, but more restrictions in the spread of genetically altered products.

[IceFire 0]

Trains are built by people. People are not built by people, that is the difference.

We cannot apply our natural sense of innovation to ourselves.

[IceFire 0]

Oh, and I don't eat genetically modified "food".

They should make laws stating that all food products must me labeled if they were a result of genetic engineering.

This way people can stay away from them if they so wished.

Personally, I think genetically modified food should be banned. But hey, atleast give people the option to choose what they eat.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Dec. 28 2002,06:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My primary problem with genetic engineering is in principle.<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, and they said they were doing this to wage war or something?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We should NOT manipulate our generic makeup no matter HOW MUCH we think we have got it safe or proven.

Playing with "who we are" and what makes us up as human beings is something we are not supposed to be doing. Or with any other life form.<span id='postcolor'> Why? Who told you this is wrong? We have a right to experiment with ourselves to the full extent, because we exist and have developed the means. I don't know about other life forms, because they don't give any consent.

Okay, I don't know jack about this Cloneaid company, but why are people saying it's a religious group? If they believe that aliens were responsible for the modern human, there is nothing very religious about it is there? (maybe) IceFire, you should try to look into what people wrote approx 5000BCE... if you think everything pre-historic is a legend or religion then too bad.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Dec. 28 2002,09:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Trains are built by people. People are not built by people, that is the difference.

We cannot apply our natural sense of innovation to ourselves.<span id='postcolor'>

No you are now wrong.

People are built by people, and we can apply innovation to ourselvs and will in the future, if we are nice to the future.

Every time someone falls in "love", the reason for it is to make/build with your genetic makeup, a new human being. (unless you love animals and experiment like that )

I like Denoirs example with trains, much better than what I would have said which would probably make people get the runs again.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 28 2002,09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do think however from an ecological point of view that we should advance carefully. The problem with today's system is that it isn't regulated and that there is a lack of proper test requirements. I think we need some standards for testing like there is for medicine. Right now it is very unregulated and genetically altered fruits and vegetables have been released without the proper examination. Its probably nothing, but I think that when we play with these fundamentals of nature that we should examine the ecological impacts first.

So I say yes to agressive research in the field, but more restrictions in the spread of genetically altered products.<span id='postcolor'>

Completely agree.

And by regulation I don't mean G.W. Bush type = ban.

[IceFire 0]

Bn880, when I said that people don't build people, I was right.

People lead to the "creation" of their offspring, but they don't "build" their offspring.  They don't go and decide how their offspring are going to be, so to speak, manually putting the pieces together I mean.  

So when I stated that people don't build people, I meant that quite literally in the terms as the way we build man made objects.

By stating this I was emphasizing the key difference between man made objects such as trains and human beings.

[IceFire 0]

Also Bn880

No, people DO NOT have the right to alter the genetic makeup of humankind.

No group of men or women should have the right to make any changes to the genetic makup of the human species.

We are all humans and this decision should be in the hands of no group men (or women).

I'm sure you will all atleast agree with this statement in this post.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Dec. 28 2002,10:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bn880, when I said that people don't build people, I was right.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree. Also with the new genetic capabilities, we are able to "build" people.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Dec. 28 2002,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also Bn880

No, people DO NOT have the right to alter the genetic makeup of humankind.

No group of men or women should have the right to make any changes to the genetic makup of the human species.

We are all humans and this decision should be in the hands of no group men (or women).

I'm sure you will all atleast agree with this statement in this post.<span id='postcolor'>

The building part, which you mean literally, I will agree with you partly. We manually decide 50% of a newborns genetic makeup by selecting a mate. You can say 0.5% but still, there is a manual selection we do.

On the question about what rights we have, I completely and fully disagree with you. I'm not sure there is a point in arguing because you did not answer my question by repeating your version of the truth. Who told you it is wrong, who or where does it say we do not have a right? Do you have some connections to higher places than I know of?

EDIT: This is becoming a difficult subject again, so let me add that it's not like anyone is going to change all of human kind, and there should be the regulations Denoir mentioned. To experiment, I believe we have a right, to be careless about it is not in our best intrest, but we still have a right to do that.

[KingBeast 0]

I think as already said, there is little reason to clone whole humans however, if so far in our history we have influenced what people wear, what people think about certain issues, how people act, what is good and bad in our minds, and if we have decided that getting lyposuction, breast implants, facial surgery and tummy tucks is "natural" then i think cloning humans doesnt stray too far from what we already do.

Cloned babies - lack of 'real' mother and father

This is true, but i would expect such cloned babies would receive lots of care and attention, as they likely cost a small fortune to develop. Think of the millions of parentless children in the world that wont be getting that care and attention.

There are test tube babies and orphans in the world, and they may lack a certain sense of identity, but i think its safe to say that they have found ways to deal with that. Im sure any cloned humans would manage to deal with it too.

But in my opinion, there really isnt any need for clones. The only situations that pop into my mind, where cloning humans would be useful, would be for various not nice things. ie growing an army, using cloned humans as medical test subjects, using clones as labourers, ie growing coal miners, factory workers, garbage men. All the jobs that people dont particularly want to volunteer for.

[morbid 0]

Nature is nothing but a process which evolves new creatures and allows those which are no longer viable to be destroyed.

The goal of any life is simply to continue to exist by reproducing, there is nothing sacred about it.

Most animals I know of (even humans to an extent) are at the prime of their life when they reach reproductive age.

The grow up, reproduce and from then on its all downhill until they die (some spiders are even devoured immediately by their offspring).

Why is this? Reproduction brings change and variety in a species, the old are replaced with the new. The new are hopefully strong. If they are not then they die.

Mankind is unique on earth in that we are no longer constrained to these simple goals. We can go beyond this and manipulate nature to create better things.

Want rice that grows in desert? Make it with geneitc engineering.

Want something that tastes like a cow but can live in drie arid regions like a camel? Engineer it.

If genetic engineering is applied properly, not left in the hands of greedy corporations then it would be possible to create foods which would vastly aid poorer nations - if it was not left to greedy corporations who would rather profit than help.

Selective breeding was and is used to produce animals and plants which are better, genetic engineering could speed this up.

Why shouldn't we manipulate nature, why should we not be allowed to IMPROVE upon nature?

Yes, mistakes will be made but mistakes are there to be learned from.

If people simply don't do something because they are afraid of what might go wrong they will never learn.

(edited due to spelling/grammer mistakes - disgraceful considering English is my first langauge )

[FSPilot 0]

Hmm, harvesting humans for cures to diseases and for their organs.

What's next, soylent green?

Anyway, if people who dont think Bush has enough evidence to go to war with Iraq, but believe this, theres something wrong.

[Sadico 1]

Yeah right. Those guy say they have cloned a person using the same procedure that was used to create Dolly and with a 50% eficiency!! Sure, a sect has archieved more than some of the best scientifics in the world who had the best equipment at their disposal. No way in hell.

[morbid 0]

Cloned humans would be just as human as you or I so any notion of organ harvesting is really out of the question.

I did once (not sure if it was true) read that a frog was created with no central nervous system, it was basically a live body containing organs but with no brain.

It would probably be easier to remove the genetic code that allows a human brain to form, than to extract all the seperate parts need to grow individual organs outside a body.

but... I don't really like the idea of trying to create engineered humans with no brains for organ harvesting. Its just.....wierd.

I have heard of one case though were a baby was born naturally lacking all but the most basic part of the brain - the brain stem, so it is possible for such a body to live.

It was (in my opinion) a very sad and horrible case.

[zverushka 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could someone post a link to the article? Further reading in the article tells that this group eventually wants to use human cloning to create human bodies for brain transplants to achieve immortality. They say "It's a good step, but my ultimate goal is to give humanity eternal life through cloning".

<span id='postcolor'>

Haha, souynds like the Robert Sheckley story, "Immortality Inc."

[FSPilot 0]

I heard of some group that was freezing people to keep them alive (don't know how that worked ) and would wake them back up once someone found a cure for mortality.

I've got no idea how it worked, probably doesn't very well.

[Frisbee 0]

Bah,If that other doctor would have said it,(an italian one I believe,I'm not sure)I'd be slightly more compelled to believe it then now that it's coming from some goofball cult who say we were put here by aliens.

Anyway,man has been tampering with life from the beginning.

Deliberately having dogs crossbreed to form a new species with wanted characteristics is just the same.

Pitbulls were breeded specially for fighting with a tied up bull,dobbermans and german shepherds for other reasons,other dogs were bred to be little so they could be used as lapdogs.

Plants are the same,having fun with trying to grow black roses,or green ones.Combining kinds of tomatoes so that the finished product has more taste,is bigger and withstands colder temparatures all in one package.

Now it's just being carried out in the area of genes,and i haven't seen anything horrible so far.

[FSPilot 0]

I haven't seen anything so far.