First Human Cloned
 

So I'm sure most of you have heard about the first human cloning. Whle the claims are pretty dubious, what does everyone think?

Personally, I'd love to have a clone. I just hope I wouldn't end up like Michael Keaton if it happened.

Re: First Human Cloned
 

*quoted from article*

Quote:

"Clonaid was founded five years ago by a self-styled prophet known as Rael, formerly a French sports journalist called Claude Vorihon, who established a sect on the belief that human beings were first cloned 25,000 years ago by extra-terrestrials."

Sounds freaky, scary and crazy all wrapped up in one neat little package, IMO. :p

When's the mother ship due to arrive? :D

A friend of mine is a cult deprog.... uh, 'scuse me ... "exit counsellor."

I'm fairly sure he's had contact with these guys ... I remember having a discussion with him when the cloning experiment was announced some months back. I'll check with him for a refresher on the info to see if there's anything of particular interest or amusement about this guy. Rael has apparently managed to amass a large following, with a large amount of money. I'll letcha know.

Re: First Human Cloned
 

Well... I'm not a Libertarian, so it's difficult for me to form opinions on subjects I know nothing about. But I find it curious that the host mother for the pregnancy was also the genetic donor for the clone. Won't this make traditional genetic testing problematic?

If anybody here is better-learned than I about the vagaries of mitochondrial DNA (and that would probably be just about everybody), I'd appreciate hearing more about it.

Talked to my Cult Expert
 

The guy who heads up the cult indeed is a French former sports writer and race car driver. He apparently had an experience while driving home following a pro rally event he had raced in. (Pro rally is usually an endurance event, so read this as "driving home overexhausted after not having slept for two days".) He claims to have been approached by an olive-skinned being, who explained many things to him, including the fact that humans were cloned and placed on earth by a race of alien beings. (gotta wonder. If we were cloned, why don't the aliens look like us? oh well.)

Anyway ... the cult claims a membership of around 40-50K, but the real numbers are more likely down around 8K (which is still pretty serious numbers for a UFO cult.

He's been watching these guys on and off for years and is suspecting a hoax.

One thing I was trying to find out ... In addition to the stories on the Raelians, wasn't there a media splash about six months ago about an Italian doc who was claiming successful implantation of a cloned human embryo?

Yea but he killed it off pretty quick, for legal reasons if i remember correctly. I think this one is bullshit but i'll tell you one thing - if they fuck up teh first one, and there will be a first one, there won't be another for a long, long time.

Re: First Human Cloned
 

I think this is opening the door to many more problems. I dont think we are ready for this.

I'm from the Show-Me State...you gotta show me (the supporting evidence).

If this cloned human actually exists (and I don't think it does), the effects could be incredibly widespread: social, moral, religious, scientific, philosophical, legal, governmental, etc. And I agree with slang...we're not ready.

We can never be *ready* for such a sociological change, I mean the implications do, as sic said cover nearly every facet of human life. Never have i seena case where a society ahs prepped for a change, we just adjust slowly over time and with every change most, then a few will rebel against it (*coughcoughSenaterLottcoughcough*)
It's one of many revolutions that will fundamentally change the way everything about our society over the next 50 years. Nanotech will destroy secondary economies overnight, biological interfaces will redefine what is human and what is not, as will AI, TIA and cognitive computer systems coupled with increased computerization will obliterate privacy, apart from the possibility of widespread quantum cryptography, creating the ultimate data safe for an age where data is the only true asset. We shall live in interesting times.

What potential pitfalls are you all talking about? I don't see any, aside from a few embryos accidentally dying (big whoop), and the fact that it would be a significant setback for genetic diversity if it were done frequently enough. Aside from that, what are you all so worried about? If you clone a 50-year-old man, you'll get a 50-year-old baby, who will likely die when he is 30. Where's the fun in creating humans with limited lifespans?

At some point that limitation will be overcome. ok, take a more begine example. Lets say teh husband in a marrige is infertile and they want to have kids, so they clone the mother. You're then going to ahve a kid that looks exactly like the mother - for the father, he's watching someone exactly like the woman he fell in love with grow up - as his daughter. It all gets a little fucked up and really does push some boundries to say the least. I mean the the whole 'designer baby' thing which is in a similar catagory also is going ot ahve a huge -and IMHO negative impact.

Think also of the legal issues involved ... what is the ability to inherit of created life ...

And what are the rights of an individual who is cloned without his/her knowledge ... that child would be his/her genetic offspring, and claims for a share of an inheritance could be made.

I was discussing this the other night, but unfortuntely didn't keep notes of the conversation. I do recall it leading to a conversation about the made-for-TV movie from the 70s, Parts: The Clonus Horror, though.

I think the legal issues would be an important consideration. Companies own the rights to the plants they've genetically engineered, and have even won lawsuits against farmers who have had the seeds from these genetically engineered plants blown into their land. (At least, that was the claim.)

So then, would the company that did the cloning own the right to a person?

(God thinks to himself)


They are cloning people today, tomorrow they will be using the Star trek "genesis" machine to make planets.

It wont be long and I will be as irrelevant as Al Gore.

I would say no on this, b/c that would be tantamount to slavery.

If you think the number of lawyers in this country is excessive now, wait to see the number explode if cloning becomes routine.

All this is starting to make me think of The Truman Show.

I hadnt thought of that although that is interesting. Owning a human. Would it really be a human? Where are the boundries? Would there be reclassification of people?

My head hurts just thinking about all the areas in American life this would alter. Fairly solid trends and beliefs would have to change.

On the other hand, I don't think it will be stoppable once the procedure is mastered.

But the gov't will try. Poindexter will require random DNA samples to put in your file along with everything else.



:eek:

C'mon slang...you like conspiracy theories too. Let's see now...

The US government has actually been cloning since the mid 1930s, underground at the University of Chicago. However, the government grew alarmed when Dolly was created. After the debacle in Florida in 2000, the US government hired a close relative of Katherine Harris to pose as a French cult representative to tout a cloned human.

Okay...your turn.

That wouldn't happen. They'd be given the same rights as everybody else. All human citizens get basic rights. Why wouldn't it be a human?

Somehow i don't think you can or would be able to 'own' a person, but the way companies can own genes does worry me greatly. It's really murky, on one hand companies should be able to profit from their research, on the other hand it's not like they made the gene, is it? It stops other people working with it in some ways.

That's the thing, though, isn't it? They're not entitled to profit, even though they seem to think they are.

If they do the research, should they not be allowed to profit from it? Otherwise what is the incentive for any company to do any research? And lets face it, public funding for research is as rare as hens teeth, not matter what you think of it.

Of course they should be allowed to profit. But they think their right to profit is so inherently important that they should get to step on other people's rights. In this case, their right to profit is so important that they're suffocating all genetic research except their own.

Hmm.. now that I read that again, I don't know why I worded that that way. I ended up saying something that I didn't even intend to say!

This is the thing, how do you draw that boundry.

This is one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read on the Cellar. So simple... so concise... so easy to do.

Hubris Boy casts a baleful gaze in the direction of ... certain other inhabitants of this forum.**

Some people could benefit from this example.

**Interesting to note that Hubris Boy intentionally omitted the honorific "Dwellar" when referring to these people.

My completely unscientific position is that the companies that design the babies wil try to control them in some way, and it will lead to a cycle of social unrest.

That, or some guy will try to put political positions into the mix, and we won't need liberal education or media anymore. :)

*Note*: I think I've watched too many bad sci-fi movies.

You said it my young Aussie friend.
Here is an interesting (I think) exhibition created to spur civic discussion about contemporary biology. It includes our old pal Eduardo Kac. The transgenic stuff is interesting, and to imagine a transgenic being that is partially human. Would or could it be our equal or superior? A new speciesism to replace racism?

Yes, I've always tried to strive for conciseness in my posts, for the following two reasons:

• If you ramble on and on and say too much, people will forget your point.
  <blockquote>This is a very real danger. Remember, folks, most people have a very short memory when it comes to reading things. Try to say things in the shortest way possible, without undermining your clarity.</blockquote>
• <i>Saying too much will leave you open to an attack during a debate.</i>
  <blockquote>Don't give your opponent any more ammunition. Ask leading questions and get them to be the one than babbles on and on. Eventually they'll say something really stupid that they didn't think through, and then BA-BOOM! Ha ha! You pounce on them! Feeding time! You see, everyone is bound to say something stupid eventually. It's just a matter of time. Like death and taxes. Don't let yourself be next.
  </blockquote>

Ani Difranco may have said it best in her song, "Anticipate":
<blockquote>we don't say everything that we could
so that we can say later
oh, you misunderstood
i hold my cards up
close to my chest
i say what i have to
and i hold back the rest
</blockquote>

Mwahahahah..

There's also another nice benefit to this strategy: the leading questions you ask hopefully force you to actually <i>listen</i> to what the other person is saying, as opposed to just trying to make them listen to you.

Okay, first let me apologize for possibly not knowing the rules, as this is my first posting....

THat said, everyone is on the negative side of this issue. Aren't there serious health advances that could be made through cloning technology? and shouldn't we explore that?

Also -- and I admit I read too much sci-fi -- but if you continue to clone over and over again with the same clone, doesn't it cause each copy or imprint to be less than the original.... (Granted, I can't remember where I read this, but it sounds scientific, anyway, and would love your thoughts!)

I think there are advantages cloning could offer to (a) people who can't medically have children -- and I would add that cloning doesn't sound so bad when you take into consideration the fertility drugs that causes abnormal multiple births (which is worse, 9 babies or 1 healthy clone?) --, and (b) what about the future and the fact that we are killing off wildlife at an astronomical rate -- could cloning offer the ability to revive extinct or endangered species?

Finally, am I being too serious?

Being serious is occasionally refreshing.

Being silly is also cool. :thumb:

Welcome!

Somebody here obviously watched Multiplicity too many times.

Welcome aboard. :)

Oh, dear.
:eek:

and thanks for the welcome!

I'm afraid I have already exceeded my "serious thought" limit for the day.


Maybe I could dream up some conspiracy though :)

Forgive me Obey...I failed to mention that you brought up some interesting points in your post. I just had to throw the Multiplicity thing in there for starts.

It's not that I am necessarily against cloning. What concerns me about the whole process is that a) Having a science background, I feel that some people out there are trying to rush things. After all, it took what? 278 tries to get Dolly? And b) The mere background of this Clonaid group is cause for instant skepticism, and I feel that it gives science a bad name.

This is something that is going to take many more years to figure out...most of us here will probably be dead by then. And not only does cloning need to be more "perfected," but there are various other hurdles to get past (as mentioned by some of us here).

*shrugs*
Debating these things always seemed so pointless, i mean you can't stop it, you can just accept and adapt to it. Can never stop science. On the upside more science is most often the solution to the problems it creates.

Hey Syc -- I loved the Multiplicity-thing, by the way.

I think the media has also hyped up the Clonaid group -- typical to report on the "sensational" issues instead of the facts. However, I don't think it gives science a bad name, because I'd LIKE to think that most of us have the intellect to see beyond the tabloid crap.

But yeah, the issue is certainly a big one and will take many years to perfect. I just didn't want the discussion to be completely against cloning -- it seems to me to be viable science, and I sincerely hope more scientists will explore it in more detail (assuming the government would stop its meddling into issues it has no right to legislate).

Oh, and I love this exchange! :D

This particular cloneaid thing is i'm sure, bull. Smart move - talk about free PR for the cult.

People get scared about these things, the legislation will peter out as the science develops. It coudl cause some interesting legal situations - imagine if some countries put limits on 'cloned' people entering, or reproducing or something. I mean geeeez, that’s all we needed, another excuse to discriminate. Maybe they'll clone an army of black lesbian Rastafarians.

There are very, very significant scientific hurdles to overcome in cloning animals before any sane person would think about cloning a person. As i said, if they fuck up the first one, the outrage will push the science completely underground with knee-jerk laws and public outcry. Of course if they fuck up the first one, incinerate it and keep on trying.......*puts on tinfoil hat*

i think the artificial womb will be a far greater advancement than cloning, it will really force some interesting definitions on child ownership. i mean you can buy sperm and eggs of smart/attractive people. Imagine if you bought both and used a womb - is it really your child? What defines then whose child it is?

I'm wandering, i'm gonna shut up now.

If you're going to do this, make sure it's constructed properly and conforms with all applicable safety standards and the latest in AFDB technology.

That AFDB cant be effective. If it was, I would surely know about it/use one.

You probably don't need one because you have the Asshat™.

Please. The asshat(TM) does not appreciate being referenced in any comic material.

Dear Slang's Asshat™,

Please accept my apology for inadvertantly referencing you in comic material.

I'm very sorry.

Sincerely,



'Wolf

On cloning:

IF Michael Jackson were to visit Clonaid...

AND IF Michael Jackson has watched the "Austin Powers" Trilogy...

AND IF Michael Jackson has paid his plastic surgeons to let him keep his "old" body parts after each surgery, and has thus accumulated a large library of spares...

AND IF Michael Jackson is familiar with the concept of a Mr. Potato Head...

Is there anything good that can possibly stem from my finishing this question?

I believe in that Jesus fellow, but even I became enraged and shouted incoherently at the TV when the moron on CNN's Talkback live asked this question about clones: "Would it have a soul?"

Say it together with me, it's a twin.

I suppose that in about 15 years time, clones will be commonplace, created by huge, faceless megacorporations. They'll be doing menial and/or dangerous tasks for us, like combat. I suppose we could limit their lifespan to 4 years as a safeguard. Some of them proabably wouldn't like the slave status they'll be given, and will revolt. We'd need an agency to spot and arrest/air-out these rogue clones. We'd need to give these cops an edgy, cool name to go with the job, something like ... Cut ... no ... Edge ... no ... I got it! Blade R -- oh, wait.

The World of Tomorrow . . . Today!
 

. . . his clone would look like this.

So it... um... wouldn't have a soul, then? I got lost there.

Sorry so opaque
 

Sorry, the Michael Jackson reference brought me back to that pic-of-the-day of the mascot scaring the kid -- the one I thought looked uncannily like Michael Jackson (on a good hair day, and doing what he does best with kids --scaring the shit out of 'em).

This all looks like "Brave New World" -- with Michael Jackson "lookalikes" ruling.

But maybe it would save on plastic surgery -- I doubt a face lift would be necessary, if you could just clone a younger "you"!?!

:alien:

Re: Sorry so opaque
 

I got it ...

In fact, I thought it was hilarious.

Investors Conference Possibly Under Investigation

From here. Too damn funny.