• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists Clone Human Embryo for the First Time

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Scientists have managed to overcome an incredible hurdle that has confounded researchers since Dolly 15 years ago. But researchers from Oregon seem to have finally confirmed (it's not a South Korean hoax this time!) that they have advanced a cloned cell past the stymied 6-12 stage into a 150 cell blastocyst which is enough to serve as a source/reservoir for embryonic stem cells. This is an extraordinary development, and I for one am excited!

Scientists Clone Human Embryos To Make Stem Cells : Shots - Health News : NPR
BBC News - Home
 
How long until we can harvest a liver from our own clone in captivity?
 
Scientists have managed to overcome an incredible hurdle that has confounded researchers since Dolly 15 years ago. But researchers from Oregon seem to have finally confirmed (it's not a South Korean hoax this time!) that they have advanced a cloned cell past the stymied 6-12 stage into a 150 cell blastocyst which is enough to serve as a source/reservoir for embryonic stem cells. This is an extraordinary development, and I for one am excited!

Scientists Clone Human Embryos To Make Stem Cells : Shots - Health News : NPR
BBC News - Home

wow if all that is true and accurate thats absolutely amazing!

Its absolutely awesome!!!!
 
How long until we can harvest a liver from our own clone in captivity?

You do know that organs can be grown on their own right? That is a technology that presently exists. And it's much cheaper and easier than making and keeping a whole person for that purpose. Sure, that would make a cool dystopian sci-fi story (I'd be surprised if Ursula K. Le Guin hasn't already written it, and there was that movie The Island), and it might have been a really ugly reality if slavery were still around and you could buy someone literally just to kill them and harvest their organs (actually, I wouldn't be surprised if that happens in places in the world), but there's nothing about cloning people that necessarily leads to that sort of abuses. Not any more than having a child through sex would.

This could be a really cool advancement and lead to further understanding of the nuances of human genetics, including eradicating genetic diseases. We might even be able to essentially modify the human species to make us longer lived, healthier, stronger, and smarter. This is a step in taking control of our evolution. Screw natural selection, we're going to intelligently design ourselves.
 
Scientists have managed to overcome an incredible hurdle that has confounded researchers since Dolly 15 years ago. But researchers from Oregon seem to have finally confirmed (it's not a South Korean hoax this time!) that they have advanced a cloned cell past the stymied 6-12 stage into a 150 cell blastocyst which is enough to serve as a source/reservoir for embryonic stem cells. This is an extraordinary development, and I for one am excited!

Scientists Clone Human Embryos To Make Stem Cells : Shots - Health News : NPR
BBC News - Home

Sweet. Now we just need to work out consciousness/memory transfer so that I can move into a 25 year old version of my body every 20 years or so.
 
This sentence REALLY gives me the willies.

It doesn't excite you? It sounds pretty awesome to me. I don't want to turn this into an evolution vs creation argument at all, but one of the biggest arguments against intelligent design is that we're not really designed very well. Many living creatures have all kinds of redundancies and weaknesses as a result of the gradual change from evolution via natural election. Not having to rely on that kind of gradual change and overcoming those weaknesses could turn us into the superhuman beings that people have dreamed about for thousands of years. We could all be Hercules. We could delete the appendix from our genetic code. We could give ourselves a more robust immune system that could fight off HIV with ease. How awesome would it be just to fix our vulnerability to astigmatisms and give everyone 20/20 vision? Obviously, "we" refers to future generations. You can't really change a living creature's genetics for the better. At least we can't now.

We can create a human race that is much more protected against the natural dangers of the world, that lives in its physical and mental prime for two hundred years, doesn't suffer from cancers or diabetes, and never again is a child born with Down Syndrome. How can that be frightening and not fill you with hope and excitement?
 
It doesn't excite you? It sounds pretty awesome to me. I don't want to turn this into an evolution vs creation argument at all, but one of the biggest arguments against intelligent design is that we're not really designed very well. Many living creatures have all kinds of redundancies and weaknesses as a result of the gradual change from evolution via natural election. Not having to rely on that kind of gradual change and overcoming those weaknesses could turn us into the superhuman beings that people have dreamed about for thousands of years. We could all be Hercules. We could delete the appendix from our genetic code. We could give ourselves a more robust immune system that could fight off HIV with ease. How awesome would it be just to fix our vulnerability to astigmatisms and give everyone 20/20 vision? Obviously, "we" refers to future generations. You can't really change a living creature's genetics for the better. At least we can't now.

We can create a human race that is much more protected against the natural dangers of the world, that lives in its physical and mental prime for two hundred years, doesn't suffer from cancers or diabetes, and never again is a child born with Down Syndrome. How can that be frightening and not fill you with hope and excitement?

This is nothing but trouble. Aren't we forgetting the ultamite law of nature is that we we cannot change what we are born with. If we start altering the genetics of our species, can we really continue to call ourselves human, as we erase or alter the very essence of our existance.

I may be agnostic but I know that this kind of experimentation always end in tragedy.
 
Sweet. Now we just need to work out consciousness/memory transfer so that I can move into a 25 year old version of my body every 20 years or so.

Science fiction writers not withstanding, that will never be possible because of the way the human brain works. Our brains are "built" not downloaded like computer memory.
 
Science fiction writers not withstanding, that will never be possible because of the way the human brain works. Our brains are "built" not downloaded like computer memory.

Dude, it was a joke. Lighten up.
 
This is nothing but trouble. Aren't we forgetting the ultamite law of nature is that we we cannot change what we are born with. If we start altering the genetics of our species, can we really continue to call ourselves human, as we erase or alter the very essence of our existance.

I may be agnostic but I know that this kind of experimentation always end in tragedy.

Like Jolie having her breasts removed? That will very likely save her life, I don't call that a tragedy.
Who wrote that "law of nature"? Every newborn has "altered" genetics. Human understanding of our genetics is the next Penicillin.
 
Like Jolie having her breasts removed? That will very likely save her life, I don't call that a tragedy.
Who wrote that "law of nature"? Every newborn has "altered" genetics. Human understanding of our genetics is the next Penicillin.

And what if this new science of cloning produces mistakes, genetic mistakes.
 
This is nothing but trouble. Aren't we forgetting the ultamite law of nature is that we we cannot change what we are born with. If we start altering the genetics of our species, can we really continue to call ourselves human, as we erase or alter the very essence of our existance.

There is no such ultimate law of nature, and I quite explicitly said that we probably can't alter already living people. I'm talking about optimizing the next generation. And of course we'll still be human. Carrots were still carrots back when they were purple, right? But even if we're not, why is that bad? We'll be evolving past human into something even better. No more homo sapiens, hello homo superior. Why wouldn't that be preferable to statically remaining in this specific evolutionary niche? What would that have to do with the "essence of our existence", which could use a definition if we're going to talk about.

I may be agnostic but I know that this kind of experimentation always end in tragedy.

Since this kind of experimentation has never happened yet, you don't know how it will end.

And what if this new science of cloning produces mistakes, genetic mistakes.

Then we fix them, of course.
 
There is no such ultimate law of nature, and I quite explicitly said that we probably can't alter already living people. I'm talking about optimizing the next generation. And of course we'll still be human. Carrots were still carrots back when they were purple, right? But even if we're not, why is that bad? We'll be evolving past human into something even better. No more homo sapiens, hello homo superior. Why wouldn't that be preferable to statically remaining in this specific evolutionary niche? What would that have to do with the "essence of our existence", which could use a definition if we're going to talk about.



Since this kind of experimentation has never happened yet, you don't know how it will end.



Then we fix them, of course.

Evolution is not somthing humanity should tamper with, along with the realms of time and death.

I picture some supervirus may come to existance that spreads like a plauge among genetically cloned humans.
 
Evolution is not somthing humanity should tamper with, along with the realms of time and death.

We've been tampering with it for thousands of years. We created dogs out of wolves. We turned carrots orange. Doing it in a lab and doing it with controlled breeding are not fundamentally different ideas. The former is simply a more effective method of doing the same thing. And not tamper with death? We've tampered the crap out of death. It used to be that one in five children lived to adulthood. We invented modern medicine and now most children live. We've done amazing things in tampering with death. How are they not a good thing?

I picture some supervirus may come to existance that spreads like a plauge among genetically cloned humans.

As opposed to a supervirus that evolves naturally? Those already exist.

It wouldn't be 'we', though, as in you and me and other idealists. It would be 'they' as in DuPont and Monsanto and General Dynamics and Phizer. Companies have already filed to patent genes and they modify plant seeds with genes from animals. What you describe sounds good until someone sees a way to profit from it. Hell, science already pimps for industry 'way too much.
Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we should.

That's a problem of capitalism, not of science.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't excite you? It sounds pretty awesome to me. I don't want to turn this into an evolution vs creation argument at all, but one of the biggest arguments against intelligent design is that we're not really designed very well. Many living creatures have all kinds of redundancies and weaknesses as a result of the gradual change from evolution via natural election. Not having to rely on that kind of gradual change and overcoming those weaknesses could turn us into the superhuman beings that people have dreamed about for thousands of years. We could all be Hercules. We could delete the appendix from our genetic code. We could give ourselves a more robust immune system that could fight off HIV with ease. How awesome would it be just to fix our vulnerability to astigmatisms and give everyone 20/20 vision? Obviously, "we" refers to future generations. You can't really change a living creature's genetics for the better. At least we can't now.

We can create a human race that is much more protected against the natural dangers of the world, that lives in its physical and mental prime for two hundred years, doesn't suffer from cancers or diabetes, and never again is a child born with Down Syndrome. How can that be frightening and not fill you with hope and excitement?


It wouldn't be 'we', though, as in you and me and other idealists. It would be 'they' as in DuPont and Monsanto and General Dynamics and Phizer. Companies have already filed to patent genes and they modify plant seeds with genes from animals. What you describe sounds good until someone sees a way to profit from it. Hell, science already pimps for industry 'way too much.
Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we should.
 
Evolution is not somthing humanity should tamper with, along with the realms of time and death.

I picture some supervirus may come to existance that spreads like a plauge among genetically cloned humans.




Nah, let's tamper away. Tampering is MUCH more fun.
 
How long until we can harvest a liver from our own clone in captivity?

STEM cells are much cheaper and easier to store for long periods of time. And ethically clean.
 
STEM cells are much cheaper and easier to store for long periods of time. And ethically clean.


My understanding is there are already nearly 100 non-embyronic stem cell therapies proven to work, and Zero embryonic stem cell therapies at present... and it can't all be blamed on lack of gov't funding.
 
My understanding is there are already nearly 100 non-embyronic stem cell therapies proven to work, and Zero embryonic stem cell therapies at present... and it can't all be blamed on lack of gov't funding.

Perhaps that is because embryonic stem cells are being researched for far more ambitious purposes? IE, a full liver transplant?
 
Science fiction writers not withstanding, that will never be possible because of the way the human brain works. Our brains are "built" not downloaded like computer memory.

There are a wealth of scientists and theoreticians who would disagree that something approximating that is impossible. Research into whole brain emulation, artificial neural networks, and the like are in part driven by a curiosity over how exactly information in the brain is created, stored, etc and whether or not it might be possible to emulate, transfer, or isolate it. This is one partitioned area of research, but to lop it off as 'never being possible' is a mistake IMO.

Unless we are talking about a physical law that would be violated (and even then the word impossible isn't always apt) it usually doesn't pay to bet against possibility. History is too replete with those claiming impossibility being proven wrong for me to be comfortable with that.
 
This is nothing but trouble. Aren't we forgetting the ultamite law of nature is that we we cannot change what we are born with. If we start altering the genetics of our species, can we really continue to call ourselves human, as we erase or alter the very essence of our existance.

I may be agnostic but I know that this kind of experimentation always end in tragedy.

There is no 'law of nature' that says that--moreover we do it all the time! Every drug you've ever imbibed, every injection you've ever received, every vitamin you've ever consumed is an alteration to your 'natural state'. In the modern day we've given people advanced bionics, cochlear implants, and life saving experimental gene therapies to name just a few.

One of the fundamental elements of being human is our relentless drive to reshape our environment to suit our wants and interests. That includes ourselves.
 
Perhaps that is because embryonic stem cells are being researched for far more ambitious purposes? IE, a full liver transplant?


I really don't know enough to say.
 
It wouldn't be 'we', though, as in you and me and other idealists. It would be 'they' as in DuPont and Monsanto and General Dynamics and Phizer. Companies have already filed to patent genes and they modify plant seeds with genes from animals. What you describe sounds good until someone sees a way to profit from it. Hell, science already pimps for industry 'way too much.
Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we should.

This is the most frustrating line of reasoning I hear from people. It is childish that based on closely held political convictions people will broadly dismiss entire fields of research and effort as nothing more than a part of some grand corporate chicanery that will never benefit the average person. It's all in "their" hands, you know, the 'drug companies'.

Yes there are ethical problems and considerations that crop up with any of these big entities, and the most emotive among them is probably drug manufacturers. However! It is utterly unthinking to sweepingly throw up your hands and say that 'they' are going to stop this from happening or prevent it from having a positive impact.

Hasn't your life improved over the past 30 years? Was MRI halted in its tracks? What about new drug therapies? Other new technologies that you find value in?

I cannot stand our countries obsession with corporate and political conspiracy, it mindlessly hardens attitudes and numbs debate. It's also silly.
 
Back
Top Bottom