------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:22pm Apr 3, 1998 ET (#3900 of 3900)

gerard dove: Why do people always want to fix something that is not broken.

'cos they're the ones who realise it is broken. Everyone else is too caught up accepting the way things are.

gerard dove: We are not Gods.

I thought we were supposed to have been created in the image of God.

Carl Nicolai: The genetic distance between some animals and humans is just 5%. Lets say we reduce it to just 2%?

The genetic distance between humans and other primates is less than 1%.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:32pm Apr 3, 1998 ET (#3901 of 3904)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I suppose it might be possible, but I don't think it is necessarily true. Religion is certainly not always pure. Science is.

Well, it is just something I suspect (genetics accounts for at least 80 to 90 percent of what a person is). As time goes on and we learn more about the nature of genetics, I think that is probably what we will find.

I think religion will be able to cope. Indeed, in times of trouble, religions tend to extend their influence.

This is a no brainer. But that doesn't make sunset laws a "wave of the future." In order for them to have any effect, they have to be implemented. I do not see this happening on a significant scale. Legislators will continue to resist sunset provisions in most cases. And they are the ones who write the laws.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 10:07pm Apr 3, 1998 ET (#3902 of 3904)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Noel Yap -#3900

Carl Nicolai: The genetic distance between some animals and humans is just 5%. Lets say we reduce it to just 2%?

Noel:The genetic distance between humans and other primates is less than 1%.

I am just saying that the distance is going to get a lot less when you start engineering one animal to supply organs for another, or using one animal to gestate another, or produce anothers chemicals.

I think it is extremely difficult to forge a law in genetic engineering, cloning, or related fields that does not cause more problems than it solves.

I doesen't matter what ends you are trying to serve.

One of the things that has helped the computer field grow was the almost complete absence of laws that tried to controll their development. Genetic engineering will grow at least as fast once the full range of possable products is realized. Even a mundane line of products such as desease resistant vegtables has an enormous economic impact.

It is the scale of this work that totally chalanges the immagination.

Just as computers are now requited tools for just about any field of study, genetic engineering and cloning will impact virtualy all aspects of life including humans view of themselves and their view of life in general.

Many have said that this is moving too fast. We must slow it down. Others advise spending the ill gotten gains of taxation to steer the progress by making scientists totally dependant on government funding and governenment permission.

I beleive in letting the system of interrelated tecknologies find its own cource and apply corrective or coercive action only to avoid a clear and present danger.

I say we let humans inventive capicity and free market economic incentives decide the pace of development.

Sheesh! Even the auhortarian mainland Comunists Chinese are figuring that out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Travis Cosgrove - 10:34pm Apr 3, 1998 ET (#3903 of 3904)

The sheep-goat cross GEEP, they are showing on tv occurs every now and then.Sheep and Goats share common genes and can crossbreed. Usually happens when a Billy breeds a Ewe, not much in this old world hornier than a Billy goat.I have seen GEEPS come through livestock auctions before.

What I want to know about is the cross I heard about on the radio.A researcher in Germany crossed a rabbit and a Chicken,the result he named a "CHIBBIT".A rabbit that lays eggs.

Real or was the DJ pulling all our legs?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Rank - 11:24pm Apr 3, 1998 ET (#3904 of 3904)

I agree with a lot of other folks that "Human-Animal Cloning" sounds like a very frightening concept. The following quotation expresses this fear; it is from H.P.Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu."

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our own frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

For some of us, that "some day" seems to be approaching very rapidly.

I found the following URL interesting in the consideration of life on Earth:

http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/phylogeny.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:31pm Apr 4, 1998 ET (#3905 of 3906)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Yes, that is a problem. To decide what is permissible, and what is not, we will have to have some definitions. Those things that are judged to be not permissible will be made unlawful. Also some things judged to be permissible and lawful under some conditions will be judged to be not permissible and unlawful under different circumstances.

Laws that regulate other aspects of life are not perfect. For example, laws that regulate the medical profession are not perfect. One can always find something in the law with which one can disagree. But I think that few would say that laws regulating the medical profession are not necessary. Laws that regulate cloning and genetic engineering will not be perfect. But they will be enacted because they will be necessary.

Carl, let me ask you a question: If you have a problem with your computer and you decide to open your computer box and fix it, is there a law against you doing this whether you are qualified to work on a computer or not? Of course not. After all, what harm can you do?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:32pm Apr 4, 1998 ET (#3906 of 3906)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Now suppose you think something is wrong with you sister, can you lawfully perform surgery on her? Actually, it depends on what you plan to do, and most of what you can or can not do is just plain common sense. For example, if she has a sandburr sticker in her foot, you may have reason to think it might be okay to get a needle and pick it out, but if what she needs is a tonsillectomy, unless you are certified to perform the surgery, you are very likely to run into trouble with the law if you attempt it.

Just because it may be unlawful for you to perform a tonsillectomy does not mean that there is anything immoral about a tonsillectomy. It just means you are judged to be unqualified to perform the surgery, and since significant harm can be caused by an unqualified surgeon, you are forbidden by law to perform it. The same will apply to human cloning. Cloning is, after all, a type of surgery: surgery at the embryonic stage. At some point in time, after human cloning is shown to be safe, cloning for reproductive purposes will legally be done, but only by clone surgeons that are judged to be qualified. On the other hand, there are possible surgeries that are immoral when performed by anyone. This concept will also apply to clone surgery.

This statement seems to be saying that we should not even think about the dangers of cloning and genetic engineering until they are upon us and take corrective measures only when a danger is clear and present. If this is the intent, I disagree. I think we need to be prepared. Some dangers can be foreseen, and I think there is nothing wrong with being proactive. Kennedy-Feinstein needs to be passed into law NOW.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracy Eggleton - 01:12pm Apr 4, 1998 ET (#3907 of 3908)

To Noel Yap I have to disagree with your extreme view that religion is just some substitute for science. Science cannot even admit the magnificent design perfection and intelligent thought that is behind the objects it studies. To be in science does that mean you cut off the part of the brain that makes you human, does knowing the difference between good and evil only come with religious training? Do you think morphing human and animals is an intelligent way to use your gifts as scientists? I agree religion has big question marks over it but so does science?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:43pm Apr 4, 1998 ET (#3908 of 3908)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Regarding the CNN story, I support Newman in his efforts to alert the public to one of the dangers of cloning and genetic engineering. We need to be alert to these dangers.

Incidentally, I understand that there is a common misconception about patents. It should be understood that obtaining a patent for a device or method does not give anyone the right to produce or sell a product or use a method that one has patented. All obtaining a patent does is give one the support of the civil law to prevent someone else from doing it. It is quite possible for a person to obtain a patent for a device or method that he, himself, the patent holder, is forbidden from making and selling, by virtue of a patent obtained by someone else. For example, if a device called a "dumaflatchy" is a patented product, someone else might easily get a patent on a "dumaflatchy" with an attached controlling "dillabubum." But the person obtaining the patent on the modification of the original product could not manufacture and sell his "improvement" because he would be infringing the original patent on the "dumaflatchy."

Actually, I think what Newman is talking about should be part of the criminal code, but in the face of government inactivity, what Newman is doing is probably appropriate enough. At least, he is pointing out a possibility that we might not want to live with, and until Congress gets around to doing its job, he will, at least, have the protection of the civil law to prevent it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Schoedel - 08:33pm Apr 4, 1998 ET (#3909 of 3910)

The only time anything should be defined as a crime is if it involves transgressing against another person. If you can haul me into court and present me with a paintiff, then there is the basis for a crime. Theft and murder are examples of such crimes.

Is it a crime for me to genetically re-engineer my body and mind so that I have an IQ of 500 and never grow old. This is my right to self-expression. Is it wrong for me to want to have kids without playing nature's equivalent of Russian roulete? This is only right that parents should be able to have kids free of defects.

I love the biotech revolution because it will allow me the choice of not having to experience being old. Old age, now thats something that really sucks and is to be feared. Biotechnology is my friend.

Kurt Schoedel

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:21pm Apr 4, 1998 ET (#3910 of 3910)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Travis Cosgrove:

I have not previously heard of a Chibbit. As an agnostic, I can never be absolutely certain of anything--it is against my "religion"--but I would suspect that the revealer of this phenomenon is adept at extending extensions.

Charles Rank:

I see no reason to be frightened by knowledge. Your quote from H. P. Lovecraft is eloquent in its phrasing, and forceful in its tone, but there is no reason to take it too seriously. There are other alternatives. Just because something can be done does not mean it must. Also, just because something is done does not mean that we must forever after accept it as the norm. What we have, with this technology, is a tool. It is a tool that can be used for good as well as ill. We need to promote the good while discouraging the ill. If we do that, it will turn out okay. Actually, mankind has created diversity for ages. The only difference is that the diversity can now be created on a much larger scale. But we can handle it. Remember that life is not, and never has been a safe haven from the terrible. Life, itself, can be terrible. But it can also be beautiful. Let us hold to the beautiful and resist the terrible.

Tracy Eggleton:

Nature does not always "admit the magnificent design perfection and intelligent thought." There is such a thing as a wart. Scientist often tend to study warts, but science is no less pure when it involves the study of warts than when the heavenly bodies are studied. Life does not reside only in the lazy cumulus clouds of a summer afternoon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:58pm Apr 4, 1998 ET (#3911 of 3911)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I take this to be a response to my earlier reference to the criminal code. If so, I must assume you think it should be lawful to mix the genes of a human and a dog to create a "hudog" (or possibly a "dogman."). Whether you do or not, I do not. Crimes are not committed against individuals only. There is such a thing as a crime against humanity. I would consider this to be a crime against humanity. Society has the right to regulate the activities of its citizens. One way to regulate the activities of individuals is to make certain acts unlawful.

I find nothing here to argue with except that what you mention is not yet technically possible, and may never be. If it was technically possible, even at considerable risk, I would want to be the first in line. But it is not.

Well, it hasn't happened yet. My guess is that you will grow old and die like the rest of us. We shall see. (Or perhaps you will see after I am dead and gone.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christopher A. Smith - 11:08pm Apr 4, 1998 ET (#3912 of 3913)

Human-animal cloning is a sinister development in biogenics. Perhaps it is far off. I hope it stays there. How would the 'cloner' control the ratio of human to animal in this being. Suppose from its human side it developed sufficient intelligence to become self-aware. And went on to acquire language. Might it then say, "Please don't kill me" when the cloner came to harvest its organs? This day if it should become reality will mark the descent of humankind into the abyss.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 09:14am Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3913 of 3913)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #3905

Carl : I am just saying that the distance is.......

Cliff: Yes, that is a problem. To decide what is permissible, and what is not, we will have to have some definitions. Those things that are judged to be not permissible will be made unlawful.

Right! For instance it is not permissible for any government to regulate my reproduction. Many also feel that such regulation is all-ready illegal under the Constitution of the U.S. and maybe under the Universial Rights of Man.

It is quite clear that individual humam cells are property under the present law. And so of cource are animanl cells.The law has scant to say about the various types of human cells or even groups of cells.

It is only when a group of human cells can survive outside the mothers body that numan rights become acquired. The bibical standard seems to be man born of woman. This is not adiquate for the kind of things that are going to occur.

The patent office "ban" on human cell patents also falls short of the mark when transgenetic considerations are taken into account.

Now if the "regulator types" have a clear idea of the total consiquences of what they are talking about and there is a clear case of human rights violations then maybe you can craft a law that will have some validity and be respected by the general population.

If not, it's best that the legislators keep their stupid, politically motivated ideas to themselves and not pass laws that are going to produce serious social conflict as well as a general disrespect for all Law.

The attempt to make everything that is moral and ethical also equivelent to "legal" is a form of tyranny unto itself. To do so premptively, is foolish in the extreme. It is the unbounded creation of laws that may threaten our civilization more that any genetic experiment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Schoedel - 10:57am Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3914 of 3917)

Cliff, society is meerly a colection of free individuals. The idea that there is a crime but no offended individual is a fascist creation. In an open and free society, people are free to do what they want as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

I'm signed up for cryonics in case I don't make it (immortality, that is). Perhaps you (and everyone else on this board) should consider signing up, too. Check out www.cryocare.org or www.alcor.org and you'll see what I mean. It sure beats the hell out of anything else.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

audrea gulley - 12:12pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3915 of 3917)

cloneing is not a natural right. if any living organism was to clone they would have been cloneing but there not. therefor natural reprodution is needed to create more of that species. we as human have no right to clone others we like other animals were given sexual reprodution by your creator you belive in or evolution. by no way was cloneing intergrated in there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:36pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3916 of 3917)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Carl, in my post, I was referring to specific genetic engineering procedures that may or may not be judged by society to be permissible (changes to the genes). I was not referring to any rights you may or may not have to simply reproduce. However, now that you mention it, I must point out that the idea that reproductive rights are inviolable is based on a long standing, but changing privacy doctrine. The Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that a right to privacy does exist. However, it has used this privacy doctrine to justify contradictory rulings.

Carl you have said this before, but I have not heard it otherwise, and I am beginning to doubt if it is true. Can you give me a reference to confirm that this is actually true? The reason I say this is that Newman is apparently unaware of this ban since he has applied for a patent that involves human cells. In addition, I will again point out that a patent does not give the patent holder the right to do anything. It only gives the patent holder the support of the civil law to prevent someone else from doing it. Therefore, even if it is true, it would be meaningless, except, perhaps, to prevent a waste of the Patent Office's time. (I am aware that they do refuse to consider perpetual motion devices.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:38pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3917 of 3917)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I think Kennedy-Feinstein is a good example of proposed legislation that has validity and will be respected by the general public after it is passed into law.

I think that if the legislature fails to pass Kennedy-Feinstein, there is going to be hell to pay. Keep in mind that the current debate is not about whether to ban human cloning for reproductive purposes. That is a given. The debate is about how long the ban should last (sunset provision) and whether to also include a ban on cloning techniques required for stem cell research. My preference would be for a somewhat shorter sunset provision, but I can easily live with 10 years, provided they leave the stem cell research alone.

I think that a failure by the legislature to regulate unconscionable behavior in a meaningful way would be a serious threat to our civilization. I think they will do it because to do otherwise would be a good way to be voted out of office.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:17pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3918 of 3918)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Sounds great, but lets get specific. Does this mean you think it should be lawful to mix the genes of a human and a dog to create a "hudog"?

Audrea, cloning is natural. Many organisms use cloning to reproduce. But don't just take my word for it. Click on the following address to link to a FAQ by New Scientist magazine which give specific examples in nature.

<A HREF="http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/clone/faq.html"> http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/clone/faq.html </A>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Glasgow III - 01:22pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3919 of 3920)

It frightens me greatly that history is happening at the pace of a Hollywood Movie script. War of the species starring everyone now alive and those of the animal world. Up for nomination at the academy? Possibly but still its roots in Valhala (Hell?) New York. Someday some one will take a leasurely stroll in a city park, they will be approached for change and as the unsuspecting virgin human reaches into their pocket they get their heads bitten off by a human with lion genes in them (Lion genes will be found to distroy the aids virus or something)and life will be more interesting. He he. God what has this nation come to? One nation under God or Satan? Is our faith in the Lord even in question here. Medical science has been playing God for centuries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 03:21pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3920 of 3920)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Funny! I suppose this means you think it should be unlawful to mix the genes of a human and a dog to create a "hudog"? ...Killjoy!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 07:09pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3921 of 3921)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref Cliff Beall (several)

All obtaining a patent does is give one the support of the civil law to prevent someone else from doing it. It is quite possible for a person to obtain a patent for a device or method that he, himself, the patent holder, is forbidden from making and selling, by virtue of a patent obtained by someone else.

A patent dosent give someone the right to "ban" production. All it does is to make sure the economic intrests of the inventer are upheld.

Patents were found to be usefull to society because they allow an inventor to not have to depend on trade secrets to protect their ideas. The trade in essence says "you tell us how your device works and we will give you an exclusive license to *profit* from it for a limited time".

It is sort of a weak attempt at a social contract.

A few years ago research showed that only 18 patents were proven valid. That is they had passed a court contested challenge.

The patent offices refusal to allow patenting of human genetic structure is well known and, as others have commented upon in this group, is probably due to to the widely held beleif that humans should be "born free".

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:31pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3922 of 3923)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

A patent on a design gives the patent holder an exclusive right to the marketing of the design features described in the claims of the patent for a period of 20 years from the date of the application. It is not necessary for the patent holder to actively produce a product containing the design in order to prevent someone else from producing it. Therefore, in essence, a patent can result in a "ban" on the production of the design covered in the claims for the period of the patent. Often, but not always, a company who owns the patent to a design will license the design, even to competitors, for royalties, particularly if the patent holder does not plan to market the design.

Patents are useful to the inventor since it give him an exclusive right to a design for a period of 20 years, and (perhaps) market leadership. Patents are not generally considered to be useful to society in the short term since they limit competition. However, since the period of patent protection is limited, the patent system is generally considered to result in an advancement of the technology in the long run. That is the rational that governments use to justify the granting of these monopoly rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:45pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3923 of 3923)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I don't know about other industries, but in my industry, properly written patents are taken very seriously. Patents are typically not contested because the language of the law is very clear. The infringing company either attempts to makes arrangement to pay royalties, or they attempt to design around the patent. Sometimes it is easy to design around a patent. Sometimes it is not, depending on the nature of the design and the wording of the claims.

Well, I have not independently heard of this refusal. Of course, this does not mean it isn't true, but I would still like to have independent varification. (I again note that Newman apparently was not aware of any such refusal by the patent office. His patent application certainly involves human genetic structure. Perhaps we shall see what the patent office does with his application.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Banerian - 09:02am Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3924 of 3934)

No, as a matter of fact I DON'T have an attitude.

Hudog shmoodog. The way mankind is screwing with everthing's gene, I now know where the name Homo ERECTus comes from.

When it comes to human/animal cloning, I like to look at the bright side:

if I were to have offspring, I'd best cross my genes with those of an ant. That way, I can safely assume that the liitle brat will follow my orders without question all his life, and if he doesn't, I'll phone the Orkin man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 10:17am Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3925 of 3934)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref.Greg Banerian - #3924

if I were to have offspring, I'd best cross my genes with those of an ant. That way, I can safely assume that the liitle brat will follow my orders without question all his life, and if he doesn't, I'll phone the Orkin man.

Cute! Except you are forgetting that malathyon has a 50 to 1 ratio of insect interfrence with the acetealcolene colenisterious interaction in insects per kilo as in humans. (SP all?) Other *allowed* insectisides are about the same or better.

Assuming that your progeny has some mixture of nerve transmission routes it won't work except at a level which will impact your ability to live. If you make a mistake you will kill yourself before you kill your offspring.

Think it over.

Regards

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Banerian - 11:27am Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3926 of 3934)

No, as a matter of fact I DON'T have an attitude.

Ref. Carl Nicolai #3925

I see your point. Guess I'll have to make due with a late-night bug bomb in his bedroom, or I could take a whiz down the hole he's living in.

Either way, he'll get what he deserves for licking the scum from my old coke cans when I've told him a thousand times the garbage pile is OFF LIMITS!!!.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Banerian - 11:29am Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3927 of 3934)

No, as a matter of fact I DON'T have an attitude.

Then again, maybe I could just get a large magnifying glass on a sunny day ....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Kleinknight - 01:41pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3928 of 3934)

That New York doctor better get himself a lawyer and high-tail it down to Arkansas and it's sarrounding states because down there, them boy's have been trying to mate with sheep for years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Kleinknight - 01:43pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3929 of 3934)

Greg Banerian....you have a "garbage pile"? No garbage cans where you live?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:05pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3930 of 3934)

Cliff Beall: Religion is certainly not always pure. Science is.

It depends upon how you define "pure." Each religion defines it in such a way that it satisfies the criteria of being "pure."

Carl Nicolai: Many have said that this is moving too fast. We must slow it down.

I am one of them.

Carl Nicolai: Others advise spending the ill gotten gains of taxation to steer the progress by making scientists totally dependant on government funding and governenment permission.

I haven't decided what control method I prefer.

Carl Nicolai: I beleive in letting the system of interrelated tecknologies find its own cource and apply corrective or coercive action only to avoid a clear and present danger.

This sounds good, but technology may move faster than we can foresee any catastrophies.

Carl Nicolai: I say we let humans inventive capicity and free market economic incentives decide the pace of development.

I prefer efficient markets over free markets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:05pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3931 of 3934)

Travis Cosgrove: What I want to know about is the cross I heard about on the radio.A researcher in Germany crossed a rabbit and a Chicken,the result he named a "CHIBBIT".A rabbit that lays eggs.

Yeah, and the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary, either.

Cliff Beall: I think we need to be prepared. Some dangers can be foreseen, and I think there is nothing wrong with being proactive.

I agree.

Tracy Eggleton: Science cannot even admit the magnificent design perfection and intelligent thought that is behind the objects it studies.

Science doesn't make subjective judgements such as these -- Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, not science.

Tracy Eggleton: To be in science does that mean you cut off the part of the brain that makes you human, does knowing the difference between good and evil only come with religious training?

Some would argue not.

Tracy Eggleton: Do you think morphing human and animals is an intelligent way to use your gifts as scientists?

It depends on what the purpose is. Are motion pictures an intelligent way to use science? In a way, it's just a waste of time. After all, most of them don't advance the cause of science.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:05pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3932 of 3934)

Tracy Eggleton: I agree religion has big question marks over it but so does science?

I agree. They were both invented to explain the universe. They are both equally perfect and imperfect. IOW, if you judge religion within the domain of religion, it is perfect. The same goes for science. They are only imperfect when viewed from another domain.

Kurt Schoedel: The only time anything should be defined as a crime is if it involves transgressing against another person.

Now all we have to do is define "transgress."

Kurt Schoedel: Is it a crime for me to genetically re-engineer my body and mind so that I have an IQ of 500 and never grow old.

If there's a chance that you can disrupt society (ie through economic factors, ...) then chances are it will be against the law.

Another way to look at what's wrong with you argument is, according to it, there should be no laws concerning mandatory seat belts, mandatory insurance, drug use, ...

Cliff Beall: We need to promote the good while discouraging the ill.

I agree.

Cliff Beall: Life does not reside only in the lazy cumulus clouds of a summer afternoon.

I like this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:06pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3933 of 3934)

Cliff Beall: I must assume you think it should be lawful to mix the genes of a human and a dog to create a "hudog" (or possibly a "dogman.").

I thought it was a "mog". Half man, half dog. He's his own best friend ;)

Cliff Beall: Society has the right to regulate the activities of its citizens.

I agree. It's a way for society to preserve itself.

Cliff Beall: One way to regulate the activities of individuals is to make certain acts unlawful.

This is one way, although I would say this should be the least quoted reason as to why we shouldn't do something.

Christopher A. Smith: Might it then say, "Please don't kill me" when the cloner came to harvest its organs?

Or, we could engineer them to want to be killed. They would then declare that they are a high quality meat, great for dinner.

Carl Nicolai: it's best that the legislators keep their stupid, politically motivated ideas to themselves and not pass laws that are going to produce serious social conflict as well as a general disrespect for all Law.

I agree, but I think it's already too late. Many already disrespect the Law 'cos of what some laws are based on and how/why they are enforced.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:06pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3934 of 3934)

Kurt Schoedel: society is meerly a colection of free individuals.

I disagree. This is akin to saying that humans are just a bunch of cells.

The idea that there is a crime but no offended individual is a fascist creation. In an open and free society, people are free to do what they want

Kurt Schoedel: as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

Again, this is very difficult to define.

audrea gulley - 12:12pm Apr 5, 1998 ET (#3915 of 3929)

audrea gulley: cloneing is not a natural right. if any living organism was to clone they would have been cloneing but there not.

This sounds like an "If man were meant to fly, ..." type argument. I don't buy it.

Also, would you define budding as a type of cloning? What about other methods of asexual reproduction?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 07:20pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3935 of 3935)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

B., Newman could sue for patent infringement only if they put the process on the market. Patents don't affect non-commercial applications. BTW, you seem to know quite a lot about what they do in Arkansas. Where you from?

Good point. Maybe I ought to rethink what I said. But I hate to give in every time someone says something that makes sense.

Yeah, I don't know where it came from, but it sounds to me like something Emerson might say. I probably should have put it in quotes since it must have come from someplace, but I don't know where.

That is a "sweetheart of a deal."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Schoedel - 09:38pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3936 of 3937)

Cells in the human body do not have independent volition, they are part of a larger system. Humans, on the other hand, have independent volition. Societies are meerly clubs which people join to get whatever it is that they want out of life. If I choose to join a club, I abide by its rules, If I don't like any particular club, I either go at it alone or, start my own.

BTW, I'm involved to two business start-ups and I like it better than working for someone else. Likewise, why should I join somebody else's religion if I can start my own?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 10:59pm Apr 6, 1998 ET (#3937 of 3937)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall: Society has the right to regulate the activities of its citizens.

Society (The most organised group with the most guns?) does not have any rights per se.

Society is not a being. It is a collection of individuals who "beleive" it exists and a set of collateral beleifs on what it consists of.

It is an abstract concept. It is not as real as your summer cloud.

It may be controlled by a volentary set of interlocking contractual agreements , by simple chemicals, such as in an ant hill, threats to it's members existance or perhaps a combination.

Throught history highly developed animals have reproduced by mating with another of their species. Some sort of society was required.

With cloning only one is required, But by combining zygotes six parent beings have been born.(mice)

Some of the two parent (and in some cases 3, but they dont know it) people want to prevent this from happening. It offends and frightens them. Many or their cherished ideas and beleifs will have to be modified and they dont want to have to think that hard.

The "society" of the future is going to contain beings whose very existance was possable only recently. This is true even if you only allow only the correction of defective genes.

Ad hominum or not, the arguments of "natuarlly" conceved humans are not going to be respected by the people whose life was made possable by "reproductively assisted" technologies. ( OH NO! Not another PC phrase ;)) They are a part of society too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Edwards - 12:17am Apr 7, 1998 ET (#3938 of 3942)

I am surprised that no one has actually committed this "abomination of desecration" yet.

Perhaps in the jungles of Africa, South America ... on some remote island of South East Asia ...

... an obscure scientist bringing to completion the fusion of simian and human DNA material ...

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE FICTION ... nuclear fusion experiments were common place in the sixites in the U.S. The textbooks indicate that the cell fusion experiments were "terminated" before they could complete nuclear reconstitution - OR SO THEY SAY.

Maybe, someone, somewhere,...

wanted to find out...

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN!!!

I wonder who?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

SIV <=> HIV? assisted transgenesis?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Edwards - 12:24am Apr 7, 1998 ET (#3939 of 3942)

Did eugenic research/experimentation end in 1947?

[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Trower - 03:47pm Apr 7, 1998 ET (#3940 of 3942)

HUMAN & ANIMAL CLONING HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. THERE IS LIVING PROOF WALKING AROUND ON ANY STREET IN NEW YORK, CHICAGO, LOS ANGELES OR ANY OTHER LARGE CITY.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 04:08pm Apr 7, 1998 ET (#3941 of 3942)

Half-Human Clones are quasipeople as well...is it right for us to bar their existance? Unless all medical progress is stopped, Half-Human cloning will happen, Half-Humans will be cloned, there can be no doubt about that. The only valid question that remains is: "what are YOU gonna do about it?" Will you discriminate against Half-Human clones? Will you make them attend seperate schools and use seperate restrooms? Perhaps you may decide to herd them into camps and cook them in ovens? Or are you afraid a Half-Human clone may move in next door or marry one of your children?

Why is there this fear of Half-Human clones? Is it because Half-Human clones go "against God?" Well...just a notch in time ago it used to be "against God" to be black, Jewish, or anything remotely 'different' from the status quo. If you fear "Half-Human clones as a weapon" you seem to be forgetting that a Half-Human clone would make just as good a weapon as any other person, and there's always eugenics.

Being human is a wonderful thing. Any simulations or approximations or animal-human mixtures of that inner beauty are likewise, whether they be electrical, chemical, or mechanical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

kevin stupen - 06:38pm Apr 7, 1998 ET (#3942 of 3942)

I think it is an extremely frightening possibility that we may be able one day to clone humans. Although all throughout history people have feared mans newest technologys, inventions and theories. Humans are change aversive, so maybe we should think more clearly about the benifits instead of denying so quickly that the earth is flat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Owens - 11:01pm Apr 7, 1998 ET (#3943 of 3946)

Relax.. Humans already share 98% of their genetic makeup with apes. Why worry about human hybrids? They will not be human! Are apes human? Respect life, but please don't get carried away here. The benefits of cross species medical technologies will be astounding and even the harshest critics will acknowledge the human benefit derived from such work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Django - 12:38am Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3944 of 3946)

A positive example of human-animal hybrids:

Cows with human immune systems and transplatation antigens, so you can harvest their organs for safe xenotransplants.

A negative example of a human animal hybrid:

A nearly 50-50 random mix of human and chimp genes where you get a barely-sentient monster who has to spend his life in a lab.

There are subtleties at work in this issue, so any knee jerk response in either direction would be hasty without further careful discussion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:45am Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3945 of 3946)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Carl, you are getting about as difficult to argue with as Tom used to be:-) First you say that society has no "rights per se." Then you describe society in terms of collateral beliefs (religious connotation?). Then you say it is an "abstract concept" and isn't real. Then, finally, you say some type of society is required. Gosh!

I think it is like this. A society is a group of individuals forming a community of related individuals. In this sense we can speak of the human race as a society, and, certainly, nations form societies. All individuals have certain natural rights, one of those rights being the right to self-preservation. But individuals, being relatively weak, often seek the protection of a group since it is generally recognized that there is greater strength within a group than that possessed by any one individual. Thus individuals form societies having greater power to maintain the life and well being of each individual than any individual might possess in his own defense.

In representing individuals within a society, however, it should be clear that not only does the society have substantial power to defend individuals from harm, it has the right to do so. Thus the rights of the society must be as great as the rights of the collective individuals within the society. But if a society has the right to preserve individuals and defend them from harm, it must, itself, have a right to self-preservation. Without the existence of the society, individual members of the society have less protection from harm. Thus the rights of society must be greater than the right of the collective individuals in the society. But, actually, the rights of society must be greater still. For example, consider the question of society's role in the case of disputes between members of a society.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:46am Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3946 of 3946)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I think any reasonable answer to that question must concedes that the society must have the right to arbitrate those disputes. I would therefore argue that not only does a society have rights, per se, a society has rights that substantially exceed the rights of the collective individuals within the society.

Your turn.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:07pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3947 of 3952)

Cliff Beall: But I hate to give in every time someone says something that makes sense.

Why not? I do it. So long as you're not a politician, it doesn't matter.

Kurt Schoedel: Cells in the human body do not have independent volition, they are part of a larger system.

Not when looked at from the cell's POV.

Kurt Schoedel: Humans, on the other hand, have independent volition.

Not when looked at from a societal POV. How else can you explain the patterns in the markets and the regularity of war.

Kurt Schoedel: Societies are meerly clubs which people join to get whatever it is that they want out of life. If I choose to join a club, I abide by its rules, If I don't like any particular club, I either go at it alone or, start my own.

This is from a human's POV.

Kurt Schoedel: why should I join somebody else's religion if I can start my own?

I agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:07pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3948 of 3952)

Carl Nicolai: Society is not a being.

It is as much an self-organised system as your brain is.

Carl Nicolai: It is a collection of individuals who "beleive" it exists and a set of collateral beleifs on what it consists of.

Belief of its existence is irrelevent. I doubt (though I'm no positive) that ants don't believe their society exists. They each have independent "free will", but the entire society can be analysed as one being. The same goes for the brain. The only difference is the level of complexity.

Carl Nicolai: [Society] is an abstract concept. It is not as real as your summer cloud.

Yes it is. What are the boundaries of a summer cloud? How large is the largest summer cloud? How small, the smallest?

Carl Nicolai: It may be controlled by a volentary set of interlocking contractual agreements , by simple chemicals, such as in an ant hill, threats to it's members existance or perhaps a combination.

So what's the difference among brains made up of neurons, humans made up of cells, society made up of humans, and ecosystems made up of species?

Carl Nicolai: Some of the two parent (and in some cases 3, but they dont know it) people want to prevent this from happening. It offends and frightens them. Many or their cherished ideas and beleifs will have to be modified and they dont want to have to think that hard.

Yes, this must be dealt with. It cannot just be ignored 'cos there are many of these types of individuals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:08pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3949 of 3952)

Tom Yardly: The only valid question that remains is: "what are YOU gonna do about it?"

Some personality is genetically based. Are we going to allow human-pitbull crosses? Should they live under the same rules as we do (ie one is responsible for their actions, not their behavioural tendencies) ? What did we do with Typhoid Mary? Was it her fault others weren't immune?

Tom Yardly: Will you discriminate against Half-Human clones?

If it's been shown that they are a menace.

Tom Yardly: Being human is a wonderful thing. Any simulations or approximations or animal-human mixtures of that inner beauty are likewise, whether they be electrical, chemical, or mechanical.

It can be.

Django: There are subtleties at work in this issue, so any knee jerk response in either direction would be hasty without further careful discussion.

I agree.

Cliff Beall: But individuals, being relatively weak, often seek the protection of a group since it is generally recognized that there is greater strength within a group than that possessed by any one individual.

IOW, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:10pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3950 of 3952)

Cliff Beall: Thus the rights of the society must be as great as the rights of the collective individuals within the society.

Society has more rights than individuals. It has the right to rid itself of detrimental individuals. Keep in mind that this applies not only to "free" societies, but to "fascist" ones as well.

Cliff Beall: But if a society has the right to preserve individuals and defend them from harm, it must, itself, have a right to self-preservation.

I agree.

Cliff Beall: a society has rights that substantially exceed the rights of the collective individuals within the society.

I agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin B. - 04:47pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3951 of 3952)

Human Beings playing GOD......

.....Scary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

barbie wallace - 07:35pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3952 of 3952)

Animal cloning is bad enough,must we mess with human cloning? I ask you how many more Ted Bundys and Jeffery Dahmerrs do we need to create? There are only one of each of us created . Don't you suppose that a higher power ,perhaps the one who created us,had a legitamte reason for doing so? I certainly don't want to walk the streets or have my children share the classroom with some half snake half Paula Jones,We have plenty of them in the world today with nobodies help!!!!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:25pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3953 of 3953)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Actually, while I readily concede the point, I am still not totally certain that you are completely correct. For example, I think it would be very difficult to attack the scientific method as being wrongheaded, from whatever domain or whatever perspective. But I am not sure there is a universal aspect of religion that is equally immune from attack. If you can think of one, I would be interested.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 11:36pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3954 of 3963)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Noel Yap - #3949

Some personality is genetically based. Are we going to allow human-pitbull crosses? Should they live under the same rules as we do (ie one is responsible for their actions, not their behavioural tendencies) ? What did we do with Typhoid Mary? Was it her fault others weren't immune?

The rational standard for self defence is "clear and present danger".

If by a human-pitbull cross, you mean a creature which is incapable of self controll, or a Typhoid Mary who can not restrain herself from spreading a lethal desease then of cource people have the right of self defence wheather there is one or one million of them in a group.

When individuals are deterministicly controlled by a group like a individual bee is in a hive then the "hive" becommes the "chunk" that is the most rational way of viewing the behavior of bees.

Because humans can suspend their individuality and act in consort does not mean that the group can be used to predict what a human is. Humans can also sever their communication and act totally independently of any society. Since society is powerless to prevent this it can not be viewed as more "real" than any individual being.

The ability to clone as a means of reproduction increases this ability in as much as a single being doesen't even require a society of two in order to thrive.

Since clones have identical chemistry and will smell the same, given the same diet, it is possable that they will form a closer society than chemically differented humans can easily do. On the other hand they may tend to associate more with non members of their group just because they are different and more interesting.

--Cont--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 11:40pm Apr 8, 1998 ET (#3955 of 3963)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

--Cont-- In any event many of the old views of humans will be changed. With the advent of clone societies humans will evolve in as least as much as thier understand of what it is to be human will evolve.

A group which possesses and is predisposed to use lethal force to prevent the evloution of humans certainly presents a clear and present danger to any free person if not to humanity itself.

I find it strange that many of the people who argue that society has more rights than individuals, also argue against allowing a potentially more coheisive "society of clones" to exist.

I dont think there has been a larger philisophical challenge since the strict division of organic and inorganic chemicals was debunked.

This idea of monster humans isn't what really scares the self appointed or elected masters who wish to controll us. Heck it's easy to whip up a bunch of good folk to murder mutants. What really bothers them is the idea of perfetly normal clones who, except for looking alike, are indistinguishable from the rest of us "nomal" people, and the idea that the beliefs, which support the status quo, will have to change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 03:52am Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3956 of 3963)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #3945 and #3946

But if a society has the right to preserve individuals and defend them from harm, it must, itself, have a right to self-preservation.

It, the society, or an eco system, or the Internet dosent have an independent existance. It can only be defined by the interactions of its members who are living beings. It has no will of it's own. A primitive human society doesn't normally even have the cohesive force of a beehive. A single bee has some independence although not much. We can totally predict many of the activities of such insect societies and their members by very simple means.

Lets look at very high level creatures that don't form adult societies. One such animal is the wolverine. Requiring a hundred or more square miles to avoid lethal encounters with it's own kind, it is driven to assoiate with others only for a few weeks a year to mate. The pups are sent on their way as soon as they are weaned. It is at least as intelligent as a dog and far faster and stronger. It's "hands" are as dextrous as a humans with claws as sharp as knives. In a fight even a full grown grisly bear will back down. Except to breed and a few weeks after birth it requires no interaction with members of it's own species much less anything that could be called a society.

Many years ago I visited the Air Force Academy and viewed the noon inspection on the quad. The female student commandant waved her saber through the air, gave a command and 1,200 caddets turned as one.

Humans have a greater ability to surpress their individuality and may choose to imbue a society with the qualities that make it appear to be a single being even more than bees do. This does not make the society a real being. It is still just an abstract concept. Humans because of their larger choice range can also choose to be more anti-social than wolverines.

Cloning expands these choices. Genetic engineering plus cloning expands them explosively.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Magner - 06:32am Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3957 of 3963)

The main pitfall in genetic engineering, cloning and eugenics is that you cannot predict which genetic traits are really the best or most important. A lot of people believe that if we create a race of human beings where everyone is smart, athletic and good looking, we may lose other genetic variables that will be essential to our society.

Example: Someone who is not very intelligent, attractive or athletic may be carrying an important gene that renders them resistant to a disease that has not even been discovered yet and will not be discovered for years and years. If we screen out this individual now because they don't meet our ideals, we will lose this important genetic trait forever.

Let us remeber why nature developed this system of Sexual Reproduction. It was to insure a great genetic variety so that a species could react fairly quickly to whatever disasters fate throws at it. Hopefully there will be a few individuals suited well enough to make the adjustmant so that they can reproduce and save the species from extinction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brandi Eikle - 09:34am Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3958 of 3963)

I agree with Kevin ....That humans playing God is scary. I don't want to pick sides and I am just confused. I mean I read the story yet my morals still says there is something not right. I just think we should look at the future..look at the both sides. The good and the bad..an honest outlook. I guess in a way make sure that messing around with life now is not going to back fire on life in the future.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

laky se - 09:51am Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3959 of 3963)

We have a large growing population of unexplored human potential. It is essential to ensure that the existing human population is properly cared for before we add newly cloned individuals out to fend for themselves. It's strange: on the one hand we talk about the depletion of resources, population controletc. and on the other we cant wait to introduce new technology to worsen the present dilemma. Cloning is a fabulous technology if it is used to improve the quality of life as it presents itself to us....otherwise it is a case of misplaced enthusiasm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jamin Drexler - 11:16am Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3960 of 3963)

We've already killed our own evolution by stopping natural selection in our species. Why is it such a bad thing to think about creating creatures who genetically could be the next step? The cloning of a human is going to happen, there's nobody who can stop that, it's just a matter of when. People instinctively attain technology when it is within grasp. The atomic bomb was a much more frightening prospect when it was created because there existed the possibility that it would ignite the earth's atmosphere. Nonetheless, it was detonated. No matter what the dangers, humans create technology faster than they can use it with maturity. We'd better get used to the idea of human clones, because it's going to happen. As soon as it became possible, it became inevitable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

La Rae - 11:46am Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3961 of 3963)

The very fact that science has created cloned animals and one goof ball wants to clone humans is enough for an athiest to become very religious.

Having raised funds on behalf of several charities, ear marking the checks for "medical research", you cannot imagine my horror when news came out about Dolly. Although I believe some good might have come out of the medical research, cloning had never come to mind before the announcement. As for the goof ball doctor, I think he should become well acquainted with Kervorkian---maybe he'll do us all a great service and seek Kervorkian's help in ridding the world of himself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 06:43pm Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3962 of 3963)

The co-author for the patent application for human-animal chimeras is Jeremy Rifkin, an anti-technology Luddite, especially anti-genetic engineering. His whole motivation in filing the patent application is to prevent anything "unnatural" from being done. No one wants to make half-human, half-whatever living creatures. What would be the point? Scientifically, the idea is to put enough human genes or human stem cells into a pig, probably, to have a transplantable, workable organ for transplant. Or into a horse to have a universal donor blood supply.

I just saw "South Park" for the first time last night. It was about genetic engineering and human cloning. It was sort of humorous, but gave the impression that scientists are crazy and obsessed with their power to alter nature. That hasn't been my experience, but most people get their ideas of the way scientists are from the movies and TV.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 07:57pm Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3963 of 3963)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Mike Magner - #3957

The main pitfall in genetic engineering, cloning and eugenics is that you cannot predict which genetic traits are really the best or most important.

The human genome project will at first be used to understand which traits predispose people to various diseases. While most genetic problems are worth eliminating there are some tradeoffs. For instance a slight tendency toward diabetes allows someone to more efficently convert fat to sugar under starvation conditions. A single sickle cell gene protects anainst malaria.

As time goes by more and more complex, multi gene interactions will be discovered. At this point you might be able to select for cosmetic or other desireable traits.

The best and most important decision will depend on the values of the parent(s). There will be fads just as in childrens names. Also many parents will try to controll the destiny of their children. What the heck they try to do that now.

A lot of people believe that if we create a race of human beings where everyone is smart, athletic and good looking, we may lose other genetic variables that will be essential to our society.

There are giant seed banks in various parts of the world that store seeds for plants that do not have a present use today. There is no reason why we could not store frozen animal or human cells in a cell bank. It may be the only way we can save certain endangered species.

Since the human genome only requires about 3G bits it could concevably be stored once sequencing got cheap enough. Even with CDRoms storage is 4.00$

Sorry about my eariler post. It was entirely too flip.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 09:13pm Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3964 of 3968)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Dawn Willis - #3962

Scientifically, the idea is to put enough human genes or human stem cells into a pig, probably, to have a transplantable, workable organ for transplant. Or into a horse to have a universal donor blood supply.

No problem! I dont think even if it is 99% of the genetic distance between pigs and humans, toward the human side, it matters as long as it looks like a pig and acts like a pig no one will care that it contains mostly human genes or cells.

Now after you are done harvesting organs you have a lot of meat left over. Is it ok to sell it for human consumption? I mean it's a pig, right? It has to be some of the safest food available. After all it was used to grow organs for humans. Is it ok to destroy it when people are starving in some parts of the world? I would guess that the PC thing to do is grind it up and use it for animal feed. Then again I dont know how acceptable it is to feed human cells or partially human cells to animals.

Why is it that I get this creepy feeling that the FDA is going to make a political rather than a rational decision about things like this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 10:54pm Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3965 of 3968)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

I just saw "South Park" for the first time last night. It was about genetic engineering and human cloning. It was sort of humorous, but gave the impression that scientists are crazy and obsessed with their power to alter nature. That hasn't been my experience, but most people get their ideas of the way scientists are from the movies and TV.

Well, I've seen every South Park episode to date, and I never got the impression that it was anti-science. Take everything in the show with a grain of salt. The "insane genetic engineer" character just pokes fun at a stereotype.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lewis Beyman - 11:41pm Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3966 of 3968)

In Response to Dawn Willis.Dawn Willis 4/9/98 6:43pm

I am not familar with the views of Jeremy Rifkin and do not know if he is an anti-technology Luddite. But he does have an article in the latest issue of The Nation magazine called "The Biotech Century: Human Life as Intellectual Property" and what he is pointing out here is both the absurdity of the right to patent various parts of the human body and its genetic makeup and the absurdity of the patent system. I suspect he is less anti- technology and more anti the crakepot capitalist system which greedily seeks profit where no profit should be sought.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

lakey se - 11:55pm Apr 9, 1998 ET (#3967 of 3968)

ref:Jamin Drexler We've already killed our own evolution by stopping natural selection in our species. Why is it such a bad thing to think about creating creatures who

How have we killed evolution? We were nowhere around when life evolved on earth.Evolution will continue in its own subtle way.True, we have altered natural environments, introduced unnatural selective pressures which have influenced life processes. Indiscriminate use of genetic engineering will further add to these unnatural factors which could in turn lead to abnormal life forms. Let's not forget, the term "chimera" itself refers to something unnatural ( or was it supernatural...more powerful than us ordinary people )? To what extent could you control a synthetic form of life? Why, we barely have any control over our own children, created by Nature's own design.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dona Cicci - 12:47am Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3968 of 3968)

Re: Dawn Willis #3962 then Lewis Bayman #3966

Jeremy Rifkin is a Luddite...he has opposed every new advance in science for the last 25 yrs. Rather than anti-crackpot....he is actually quite intelligent...he created a livelihood from nothing, very much like tele-evangelists. He typically preys on the layperson's "ignorance" of a topic and blows it out of proportion. He is like the National Enquirer of the science world

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:18pm Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3969 of 3973)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

No argument with that. But what does it mean? You quote Noel's question: "Are we going to allow human-pitbull crosses"? and start talking about self defense. What does this have to do with self defense? The question on the table is whether we should allow it, not whether we should be permitted to defend ourselves against it after it arrives, and under what conditions

You have previously argued that the technology should be allowed to progress unmolested, until a clear and present danger manifests itself. You apparently see a clear and present danger emerging, but counsel against doing anything about it until it is upon us. Why?

Personally, I am not sure I see a significant danger. What would be the point of creating a human-pitbull cross? Nevertheless, I see no reason for society not to take measures to avoid this type of thing. Nothing wrong with belt and suspenders in my opinion.

I don't think either Noel or I ever argued that society is more real than an individual human being. But I do remember arguing that society is real, and that it has certain rights, for example, a nation society has the right to make laws and arbitrate disputes between members of the nation society. (If you do not agree that society has the power to prevent it, nor the right to oppose it, surely you will concede it has the power to impose sanctions against it.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:19pm Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3970 of 3973)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I think it is as real as the individuals that comprise it, and its existence is just as independent. The nation society that we call the United States is real, and it has the power and the right to define dangers and to enact laws to regulate the interaction of its citizens. (If it does not have the right, it certainly has the power.) The same applies to other nation societies.

I am not certain that human cloning from adult cells will ever be possible. I assume that Dolly, the sheep, was cloned from adult cells, but I am not absolutely certain it happened. I assume that another animal will soon be cloned from adult cells, but I am not certain it will actually happen. Considering the current difficulties with cloning, I am not sure how explosive it will be. But just in case, I would suggest that society be prepared.

I see no evolutionary reason why dumb, ugly people would have beneficial genes, from a medical point of view, that smart, good looking people would not have. I would suspect that most beneficial genes of this type would be distributed without regard for these particular characteristics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:23pm Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3971 of 3973)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I disagree that our evolution has ended. I think we are continuing to evolve. Mutations are continuing to occur. Some of those mutations are passed on to future generations. True, we are no longer selecting in the Darwin sense. The selecting mechanisms have changed.. It might even be argued that natural evolution has become almost random. Still, changes are occurring. We have not stopped evolving.

Or maybe not.

I don't think it hurts to have a few Jeremy Rifkins around. It keeps us on our toes.

Good point. No profit in that that I can see.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:18pm Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3972 of 3973)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

And the right ones. The wrong ones, and all sorts of weird thing could be born, raising all sorts of ethical questions we don't need. I think Newman's (and Rifkin's) point, in this case, is valid, and I think this sort of thing needs to be monitored by society. I trust most scientists and most biotech industries to apply the technology in an ethical manner. Furthermore, I think that most profitable aspects of the technology are ethical. But it still needs to be monitored, and when necessary, regulated. And I would again point out banning of a particular aspect of the technology is a type of regulation.

These days, I think they get them mainly from the evening news.

Carl, that is creepy. Are you sure you are not in cahoots with Jeremy Rifkin;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:18pm Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3973 of 3973)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I suspect it will be more the congress making the decision, rather than the FDA. And I have no doubt but that congress will make a political decision on the matter.

First, Lewis, you can not patent a discovery, so how can one have the right to "patent various parts of the human body and its genetic makeup"? Only inventions can be patented. Second, a patent does not give one the right to market the invention. It only gives one the support of the civil law to prevent someone else from marketing the invention during the period of the patent. I do not agree that the patent system is absurd. The great thing about patents is that they run out. Consider all the software patents IBM obtained in the seventies. They represent a virtual gold mine of software techniques that are now, or soon will be, free for anyone to use, along with instructions on their use.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

d sagerian - 05:58pm Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3974 of 3974)

Aside from the quite viable, and very much needed, manufacture of human transplant organs from cloning, there is another consideration.

Our society is becoming more technologically advanced and requires people with advanced learning and technology skills to manage it. In efforts to reduce the costs of manual labor, cloning could produce a species of human/animal capable of performing manual labor jobs that do not require advanced intellects, at little or no cost. I'll bet this fact was considered in the procurement of this patent. I, frankly can see an application for such species in the World's long term future.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 07:08pm Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3975 of 3976)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

d, when you mentioned the need for "people with advanced learning and technical skills," I thought you were about to suggest genetically engineered clones to fill this need. Instead, you started talking about manual labor jobs.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me since cloning, by the nuclear transfer method, is anything but cheap. Plus, in a few years, robots will probably be able to handle many of those manual labor jobs to which you refer, and robots really are cheap.

However, you are right, we are going to need "people with advanced learning and skills." Wonder where we will get them?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 11:14pm Apr 10, 1998 ET (#3976 of 3976)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #3970

It looks like we are beginning to approach the Argument.

Society, or indeed any group or collective of hummans, is only as real as the beleivers imbue it. It can be said to have power in that individuals give it their power. By having humans act as though it is real it takes on an appearence of existance. If the individuals that beleive in it act in consort it looks "very" real. It seems to make sence to refer to it as though it indeed were a being, it seems to obey certain laws and has regular patterns. Remove the beleivers or the beleifs however and "poof!" it is gone.

Based in part on "self evident truths" the United States of America has attracted an incredable number of beleivers. Many of it's members including myself have been willing to lay down their lives in it's defence, but Cliff it is still only an abstract thing. It is not a being. It is a collective of beings. It has no rights. It's members have rights. It is legally defigned by a piece of paper.

You are a being. You have rights. Your legal existance is not defigned by a piece of paper.

I maintain that a society of clones has a greater potential to form such a "state". Weither they do this or not is another question. Their society will look more real because they look the same.

We should be able to predict some of these tendencies by studying the differences between a herd of cloned cattle vrs. "natural" cattle, if there are any differences. Perhaps simians would be better.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 03:25am Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3977 of 3979)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

This is probably true, at least in the beginning.

This is sometimes true. Sometimes not. But in either case, whether given or not, it is no easy task for an individual to take it back.

I agree.

Not so fast, Carl. A nation society usually does not disappear merely because of a lack of belief, or by opposition by individuals. A nation society has significant power to maintain its existence, and typically does not lose it's power to an individual. To lose it's identity and power, it usually must be defeated by an opposing nation society.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 03:26am Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3978 of 3979)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

That status is held not just by the United States. That status is held by practically every nation society on the globe. Those nations exist, as well as our own, and those nation have the power to impose their will within those nation's borders also.

I also served in the military. That is something that one agrees to do upon entering the military whether drafted (back in my day, we had the draft), or one volunteers, as I did.

It is an entity having great power to impose it's will upon its members. Except where constitutional guarantees impose specific limits to its power in this regard, its power to arbitrate disputes within its borders is practically absolute. Whether you agree it has rights is beside the point. It has power. However, I believe it also has rights. For example, I believe it has the right to grant certain rights of society membership. One of those rights, to which I refer, is the right to own property. A right to own property is not a natural right. It is a right granted by society.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 03:28am Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3979 of 3979)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

True, I am a being, and I have two kinds of rights. Natural rights, and other rights granted to me by society. However, rights, of any kind, are meaningless without the power to maintain them. Realistically, as an individual only, I do not have the power to maintain my rights. Therefore, my principal safeguard against a loss of the rights I enjoy is membership in society. Otherwise, I would probably have the rights of a cow.

My "legal" existence is defined by my birth certificate, a document supplied to me by the state. In short, my "legal" existence is only as real as the state that granted it.

The bottom line is that society has the power to impose limits on human cloning, and the power to impose sanctions to enforce those limits. Whether you or I believe it has the "right" to do so is irrelevant. It has the power.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 07:39am Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3980 of 3982)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref.Cliff Beall -#3979

Totally wrong. It is the individuals acting under color of office who wield the power. By defination the government of the U.S. can not violate your rights. That is to say that by defination a constituted government can only do what the constitution says it can do. Anything outside of that is mearly some thug violating your rights. The fact that they hold some office or the other is irrelevant. That is how the feds were able to prosicute the police officers who attacked Rodney King.

Many, and I mean many, people hold their reproductive rights to be sacred. The sine quo non of freedom, if you will. Any human messes with these rights at their peril government, law, or no. Sure I know that the "government" of mainland China drags people out of their homes and forceably aborts and steralizes them for attempting to have more than one child. I mean they have a law correct? I mean if China can get away with that kind of crime against humanity then what is a little prohibition on cloning in the U.S.?

I beleive that the bang per buck in cloning and genetic engineering is going to follow the curve that computing has done. That is to say doubeling about every 18 months. This is where the power is, and you can better beleive that the practitoners of these arts and the capital that supports them is going to flow to where ever their work can be most ealily carried out. That is economic Law, and the legislators would be well advised to heed it. In fact they seemed to have cooled off since Dr. Seed scared them witless.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 10:00am Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3981 of 3982)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Well I have been doing compression studies on the genes in various banks. I'm using PKZ204g now, but will try a concordence approach with more data. (treating short repetive strings as words.)The first thing I would like to know is how to get human introns. There seems to be a lot more xons. (Natch) Although I know introns dont code for known chemicals I'm going to pretend that at least the complex ones carry a message rather than are just place markers or extra space. Besides some of them have exon compressability factors which indicates they are not truly random and therefore must have or have had a function. (although it's real difficult to get excited about 1000 As in a string unless you notice that identical cells with 1020 As produce different chemicals. hmmm... maybe a different kind of cypher)

Is there one ceneral location where all the human genome data is stored?

Also I keep reading about figures from 3G to 10G bits for the whole genome. Does that include introns. What is the total number of bases the genome has.

Since the cytoplasm chemicals seems to regulate tRNA I guess I'll give a stab at figuring out it's complexity. (again treating it as a cypher)

Who knows, the factory might be a lot more interesting than the blue prints.

BTW by using some kind of "average" human genome as a standard refrence it is possable that each non cloned humans genetic individuality could be expressed in as little as 3M bits. This could be done using linear predictive encoding and a very large sample of existing human genes, Of cource 2 to the 3 millionth power is a very big number.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 11:33am Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3982 of 3982)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Back to the subject at hand.

In Sparta a couple of thousand years ago sickly children were killed. In Japan less than 1,000 years ago the second identical twin was "disposed of". ( Sort of a cloning ban I guess.) Today in 3rd. world countries sometimes mothers have to decide which one of their 2 children they will breast feed and which one will be left to starve. (They just dont have enough milk for both.)

Inhuman? No! Very human choices.

Now we face a decision as to weither to "allow" age differented human twins to be born. ie. Clones.

How are you going to stop them from being born?

People who command a marital state, and even single people, who want to raise children and who can not have them have been known to steal children, buy them, or get their family members or even strangers to give children to them. What in the world makes you think that a few mesally (sp?) thousand dollers in medical fees, legal or not, is going to stop them. And that is how low the prices are going to go.

Ya sure, many childless peoople will adopt. I have friends that obtained an unwanted girl baby in China for a whole lot of paperwork and 6,000 US$. The total outlay was about 20,000 U.S.$. This unwanted child was found half dead on a park bench. But beleive me if he and his wife could have had a "natural" child by any means they would have gone for it even at a huge expence and a lot of risk. They would have had a clone of either one of them without a second thought.

Some want to pass a law prohibiting cloning? Good luck! Just who do you want to punish? The technitions? the doctors? The parents? The children?

Dude!(and Dudetts) The cat is all-ready out of the bag.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:46pm Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3983 of 3983)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

It is not individuals acting under the color of office that have power. It is society that has the power. The local police are granted authority by society to enforce the laws of society and are charged with the duty to do the same. They do not have power. They have only the authority granted to them by society. If they fail to enforce the laws of society, their lack of action is unlawful. However, if they exceed the authority granted to them by society, their actions are also unlawful. How can this possibly be considered power?

Furthermore, it is not the constitution that protects your rights. It is society that grants, maintains and protects your rights. The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper containing a superset of laws, maintained by society, with which no other law may conflict. It is society's support of, and adherence to the constitution, written by society, that protects your rights. Without society, you have no rights. Your rights are only as real as the society that grants, maintains and protects them.

And many people consider their right to the religion of their choice sacred. And many people consider their right to freedom of speech to be sacred. But, actually, these rights all emanate from society. They were written by society and are maintained by society. There is nothing supernatural about any of them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alfred Hitchcock - 04:27pm Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3984 of 3984)

Here's why I thing a ban on human cloning will (and probably should) not be done: It is unconstitutional. Let's say a couple is totally infertile, wants a child of their own progeny, so in desperation, they go to a specialist who knows how to clone adult mammals, asking it be done to (one or both of) them. The doctor agrees. At this point, the government has no right to stop this procedure from happening. Why? For the same reason that bans on abortion (like it or not) have been declared illegal by the Supreme Court (i.e. Roe vs Wade): It is a private reproductive decision made between a doctor and a patient. Plain and simple. The technque or technology should not matter; it is still a reproductive decision that the government has no right to prevent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:47pm Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3986 of 3987)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

First, Alfred, your post presupposes that human cloning from adult cells is possible. That has not been demonstrated. To date, with the possible exception of Dolly, all successful animal cloning have been done at the embryonic or fetal cell stage. Most people, including scientist, assume that Dolly was, in fact, a clone from an adult cell, but there remains the possibility that she was not. If she was, the Dolly experiment has not yet been duplicated. Until it is, there is no certainty that it can be duplicated. In addition, there may be technical reasons why sheep cloning may be more successful than human cloning. I quote from the Science section of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission report:

In the event you are interested in further information on the science of cloning, you could do far worse than to review the science section of this report. For a link to this report, click the address below:

<A HREF="http://bioethics.gov/bioethics/pubs.html">

http://bioethics.gov/bioethics/pubs.html </A>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:56pm Apr 11, 1998 ET (#3987 of 3987)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Second, Alfred, your post presupposes that human cloning from adult cells is safe. Given the likelihood that human cloning will be more difficult than sheep cloning, the difficulties Wilmut experienced cloning Dolly should give you pause. In the 277 attempts to clone Dolly, about 60 percent of the fetuses died before birth, but a significant portion died, after being born, of severe abnormalities, including heart, lung or genito-urinary-tract abnormalities. Cloning is currently a very gristly business. As Dr. Wilmut has said, "It's distressing enough with farm animals, but to contemplate it in humans is quite appalling."

Iain, considering the difficulty Dr. Wilmut has experienced with sheep cloning, and the expected increased difficulty with human cloning, my guess is that there won't be a great deal of money to be made from human cloning, whether above ground, or underground. The big bucks is with animal cloning for medicinal purposes. That is where the money is, and animal cloning is expected to remain legal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 01:15am Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3988 of 3989)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall - #3979

Correct, except it is clearer that you have rights, and you are granted license. Your rights are yours. The "society", or other humans can only recognise or refuse to recognise them. License is required to engage in activities which are inherently dangerous such as driving a car or doing brain surgery.

If you totally depend on others to defend your rights you will not even have the rights of a cow.

BTW I, the being, recognise your rights. In some ways more than your "society" does. And I have an obligation to myself to defend your rights because I know that if someone (society or no) can deprive you of your rights they can deprive me of mine.

Cliff Beall - #3983

Some if this seems to be at odds with your previous post.

Correct they are natural. They derive from the nature of your being. ---Cont---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 01:52am Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3989 of 3989)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

---Cont---

I find it interesting that if your views about society are correct, and if the strength of a society depends upon the cohesion of its members, and if it is easier for humans to form bonds with those most like them, then a "society of clones" should be extremely interesting. It all-ready frightens some.

If I am correct then many, if not most, of them will seek out the company of others for the same reason that siblings become bored with each other.

Having a society that contains age differentiated twins will teach us a great deal about what it means to be human.

We should allow it for this reason alone.

We should not violate the rights of our citizens to engague in this form of procreation.

These are not the proletariat in some USSR slave camp. They have the means of production. They dont require a huge factory to procreate. Their bodies and what will become an insignificent ammount of technology is all they require.

This idea of making something illegal until it is totally safe is nonsence. These doings and undoings using the lethal force of the law just jerk people arround.

If the government dosen't want to fund it, great. I don't want them to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:11am Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3990 of 3991)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

What are you talking about? I am granted license? By who? By society? But Carl, by your argument, society has no rights. Only individuals have rights. Furthermore, according to your argument, society is not even real. And now you seem to be suggesting that society has the right to license, or not license, individuals for particular jobs. How does this advance your argument?

That is precisely the idea of society. You seem to think that society is the enemy. It is not. Society is the guardian of your rights. Without society, you have no rights at all.

These rights derive from an agreement by members of society that they are desirable. I want those rights. You want those rights. Most people are insightful enough to realize that they can have those rights only if they support the same rights for others. Together, we form a society based on those principals. Whether they are "natural" or not is irrelevant. Merely that we desire them is what matters, along with the fact that we have formed a society strong enough to defend and keep them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:15am Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3991 of 3991)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

I did not say that the strength of a society depends on the cohesion of its members. I believe you have made a number of statements to that effect. I do not necessarily disagree, but it is certainly not a point that I would make.

I do not know why it would frighten anybody that clones might form a society any more than it would frighten them that scientist, or engineers, or salesmen might get together to form a society. (This, of course, assumes that human cloning from adult cells is actually possible, and will, at some point in the future, be made safe for the offspring resulting from the procedure. Otherwise, there will be no human clones to form a society.)

Once it has been shown to be safe, I will not oppose it. Nor do I believe that society as a whole will. Reproductive rights are important, and should not be abridged except under conditions of significant danger. Currently, the danger is considerably more than significant.

This statement would seem to indicate that you do not understand how dangerous cloning is currently. And yet, I know you must be aware of the associated problems. How do you explain this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 06:14am Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3992 of 3993)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #3990

Collectives such as States,Nations,Societies,Clubs, Corporations,Companies,Churches,Marrages,Famlies,Tribes,Hives,Covens,Political parties,and Friends are not real entities as beings are. They are abstractions that are convient ways of describing groups whose members share preceived relationships and ways of interacting with each other and outsiders. While composed of beings those beings will often act in consort in various ways. Thus the group qua group appears to be a being even though it is not. People still tend to treat it that way.

The United States of America (US)is such a group. The CNN message board community is also.

The US "clames", acting through very stanch beleivers who are often opperating under the concept of color of office, the right to allow individuals to persue very dangerous and otherwise illegal activities by the granting of license. Basicly almost everyone goes along with the gag because no one else can come up with a better way to allow these dangerous but often vital activies to occur.

Cliff, I'm not particually interested in advancing my particular argument. I'm interested in finding The Argument , that is to say the unknown ideas that devide us and cause us to disagree. ---cont---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 06:43am Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3993 of 3993)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

---cont--- Human cloning introduces new moral and ethical problems to a "world society"(now there is a phantom) who cant even handle color differentation, recretional drug use, or curupt political systems even though these things have been arround for thousands of years.

Now if you want to cause human cloning efforts to be conducted with a reasonable degree of safety just pass a law that holds everyone directally involved in the creation of a malformed human responcible for it's care. In effect we do that anyway with the laws we all-ready have. It is an unwriten "super law" that you can not wield power without accepting responcibility. Codify it as respects to cloning.

Sure I know how dangerous it is. I've read the same reports as you. In a CNN story a few week ago there was a report on the problems of invitro fertilization. Some doctor implanted a balstosyst that had both male and female cells in it and produced a true hermaphrodite.

I'll bet its parents were not real happy about that. (maybe one in 10,000 naturally) I wonder who had to pay for the corrective surgery and who made the decision to make it a boy or girl.

Cliff we seem to differ in another point of view. I know that if the first few human clones are born alive but very manformed the legislature will pass an anti human cloning law faster than you can knife a goat.

In that you want to wait until it is safe, you are in some sence more pro cloning then even I am.

I think that the biggest danger will occur if the first hundred or so clones are perfect.

I'll have to ponder this a while.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 10:02am Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3994 of 3994)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Noel Yap - #3931

Tracy you confuse "Science" with Scientists. All of the ones that I know feel a connection with the statement "Oh Lord! Your sea is so vast and my ship is so small." even if they don't beleive in God. Science is the body of Knowledge they have accumulated, Nothing more. Nothing less!

Noel. As regards to Occam's Razor it is more than just a rule of thumb. You are correct when you say it is not science, but it is the first idea that allowed people to seperate science from religion.(Other religions?) It is in effect a basement belief that allows mathemetics or rather simple mathemetical expressions to have power over complex ones.

Scientists will persist with these concepts until the basic ideas of the "laws of thought" (or slight modifications)can prevail. They will boil things down until even a dimwhit can understand them. (lucky for me :))

Human cloning will likewise be reduced to a simple set of practices so that even low level technicans or doctors can succeed in creating a healthy human clone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 08:38pm Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3995 of 3996)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Ah, I am beginning to see. Your purpose is not to persuade. Your purpose is to discover. You make outrageous statements on purpose, and wait for a reaction. To you, this board is like a science project.

I must confess that I am not that deep. Partly, I suppose, I do wish to persuade, but, mainly, I think I just like to argue. I try to put together the best arguments I can and see how they wash. I try to maintain a consistent posture of straddling the fence. This is no accident. It is my nature to straddle the fence, and I try to be true to my nature. I also try to see things from other people's point of view, not because I plan to adopt a point of view other than the one I have already, but as a means of helping me to arrange my arguments for best effect. This board is a game with me, and I like to play.

Beautiful, just beautiful. Just the sort of thing I have come to expect from you. You did not answer my question, but instead, immediately shifted the emphasis into another area of controversy, as if you thought I would not notice. (For the record, I did notice.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 08:40pm Apr 12, 1998 ET (#3996 of 3996)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Carl, I am not certain you are pro cloning at all. You seem not much interested in animal cloning and the medicinal benefits to be derived thereof. You seem mainly interested in human cloning and its associated problems. However, you constantly emphasis the more controversial aspects of cloning while insisting that reproduction rights are "sacred," and that society is trying to do them in. But I think I know why. Tell me if you think I am close. (Actually, I do not expect you to answer this question, but I will ask it anyway.)

Cheers, friend.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 02:17am Apr 13, 1998 ET (#3996 of 4002)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

I was reading a story on how some cancer cells resist drugs here on CNN and saw our friend Dawn mentioned:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 03:32am Apr 13, 1998 ET (#3997 of 4002)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #3995

As I have mentioned about 3,000 posts ago. I first got interested in cloning With the Scientific American article on the cloning of carrots in about 1959, and another on the cloning of frogs. Later in college I belogned to a group of people who loved to explore the future. We all took science classes and read science fiction. We bacame absolutely convinced that clonoing as a process would occur for everything from microbes to humans. We had all-ready read chemestry articles on the use of using animal bodies to synthesize complex organic coumpounds.

We also thought that the reaction of many people to human cloning would be severe and indeed irrational. We forsaw that many people would be willing to use lethal force to prevent others from cloning. Thus the clone wars. Later we read science fiction stories where the authors spoke of the "clone wars"

Now allmost all of us had just come off active duty or were still in the service or planning to join it. And we were all volenteers. Nam was just building up and we were well aware of how little it takes to start a war.

So for me the reproduction of humans by cloning has all-ready happened. It is, as others have said, "A done deal". It is as if I really live maybe 20 years from now and have been thrust back in time to see just how it all unfolded. Reading other posts I detect that other people also feel this way. A few have even expressed it.

Basicly I think wars are getting unacceptable. Neglecting the moral aspects, the only rational thing worth fighting over is oil and maybe land. ---cont---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 04:07am Apr 13, 1998 ET (#3998 of 4002)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

---cont--- A war over cloning has the potential for human abuse that would make Nam seem like a birthday party at Disneyland. I dont want to be forced into it. I dont want my children forced into it.

Making cloning illegal is the first step in fostering the kind of alieniation that can spawn such a conflict given the desire of some people who wish to bear their "own" children.

Making something illegal doesent just "regulate it" it casts a moral pall over everyone cocerned. Think about a child born of an illegal procedure saying to his classmates "My parents were put into jail for having me".

You say I make "Outrageous statements". I think they are fairly minor logical extentions of cloning and genetic engineering cast within the framework of our present culture.

Human cloning is like the gentle kiss of mother nature herself compared to using nano technology, celular automata programs, and bioengineering together to create cyborgs.

I am sorry if my leaps in logic present a non-secquitur problem.

As for answering your question on the dangers of cloning; I was amplifying your position by pointing out that even the well known assisted reproductive practices we use now have great problems associated with them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Magner - 06:32am Apr 13, 1998 ET (#3999 of 4002)

I think that the motives for human cloning need to be thought out more carefully than the methods themselves. There have been a lot of benefits already from cloning. One classic example is the integration of the human insulin gene in to bacteria DNA to produce insulin for diabetics. Other benefits are likely to come out as well, such as cures for cancer, increased lifespans, and cures for various genetic defects.

The problems in science result from scientists and their financial sponsors who have non-scientific motives. People with large egos who wish to lone themselves a thousand times over should not be allowed to do so. Scientists who wish to create super-human warriors should not be allowed to do so. I think I have illustrated my point about motives.

Another fact that people seem to miss is that you can only clone a person's genes and not their personality or intelligence. Genes only determine a person's overall potential for intelligence, athletic ability etc. Most people never actually reach their true potential, especially in regard to intelligence. This is because they get distracted by television and pornography. Through genetic enigeering and cloning you could increase people's potential but there is no guarantee people would actually be smarter.