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

Jay Lockhart - 02:03pm Aug 7, 1997 ET (#400 of 1108)

Jeff Emler - 10:51pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#377 of 399)

Nope. I still don't buy it. Also you cannot exclude religion from science, people will intermingle them for many reasons.

I still don't understand your analogy with the cow and bull: what does that have to do with men and women?

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

John Tal - 02:09pm Aug 7, 1997 ET (#401 of 1108)

In the story on Bull Cloning: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9708/07/bull.cloned.ap/index.html

Richard Weiss, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation said:

"It could result in fewer cows because many dairy farmers, if they can maintain their volume with fewer cows, will do that,"

This is preposterous. Genetic variablility is a great asset. Having cloned cows in milk production will require more antibiotics as a single pathogen would effect all cows the same way. Science must ask the question *should* this be done instead of *can* it be done. Science needs to turn from knowledge to wisdom (considering the effects of R&D beyond the next quarterly report).

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

Ilya Taytslin - 02:36pm Aug 7, 1997 ET (#402 of 1108)

Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was slightly gray, It didn't have a father, just some borrowed DNA.

It sort of had a mother, though the ovum was on loan, It was not so much a lambkin, as a little lamby clone.

And soon it had a fellow clone, and soon it had some more, They followed her to school one day, all cramming through the door.

It made the children laugh and sing, the teachers found it droll, There were too many lamby clones for Mary to control.

No other could control the sheep, since their programs didn't vary, So the scientists resolved it all, by simply cloning Mary.

But now they feel quite sheepish, those scientists unwary, One problem solved, but what to do with Mary, Mary, Mary.

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

lynn shiels - 05:22pm Aug 7, 1997 ET (#403 of 1108)

Hello everyone...I have read through many of the previous postings and I see that the debate mostly concerns the ethical implications of cloning humans or human organs. I agree that there is a great potential for reducing disease and using cloning technology to benefit our own species. Deviating from the conversation of cloning as regards human welfare (agricultural and medicinal advances) I would like to say that there are a great many other species that could benefit from these methods. The white rhino, for example, and many other severely endangered species might just have more than a chance of surviving if we are selfless enough to save them and the areas where they live. With so few breeding pairs of some species left, cloning may be the only option if we are to save them from extinction.

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

Johari MA - 07:13pm Aug 7, 1997 ET (#404 of 1108)

Jeff Emler 8/6/97 11:19pm

>>True, what's impossible today may be tomorrow's reality. I must say, though,it's a quite a stretch from coaxing a tumor cell into accepting a single foreign chromosome to producing a living creature composed of two different species. Tumor cells, as you are aware, do not behave like normal cells, and are easily manipulated. <<< That is your opinion Mr Emler. In early 1900 or 1800, have we ever thought of 'remote control'? At that time, I think people would speculate such thing as 'impossible'. This example might not be directly related, but, the future is yet unknown.

Further, I think you use the word 'easily manipulated' loosely there. Nothing in the world of nature is 'easily' understood. Scientist still don't know how and why tumor cells from such rodents accept human DNA. WHEN people know the reason(s) Mr. Emler, they will know the 'factor' that causes the tumor cells to 'accept' human DNA (and HOW tumor cell line becomes immortal). THEN Mr Emler, we would be able to apply such knowledge in normal cells (for beneficial purposes of course, not creating 'weird' new species or etc nonsense). This is how science 'mature' everyday....and how science will change the future, is yet unknown. Therefore Mr. Emler, I stress again, certain things may sound fictitious today, BUT it may be a reality in the future.

>> To put it into perspective; think of the difficulties in simply making an organ transplant among the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .of rejection involves the immune system, and not the disparity between the DNA of the donor and recipient. However, this demonstrates the resolve of an organism's resistance to "non-self." <<< Not necessarily Mr. Emler. Our knowledge about the immune system is still incomplete. The risk of rejection may not be resolved (entirely), BUT....that doesn't mean we should be pessimistic for (other) possible solutions (eg using organs from other species). There WILL be complications (when using organs from other species), BUT.... we should be able to handle that problem in the future.

>>Though I do not know the exact biochemistry; I am aware, just by empirical observation and reading, that the resistance to non-self is a powerful biological law. Laws exist in biology just as surely as they exist in physics. The fact that species will not cross is a biological law. <<< Yes; nature is dictated by 'laws' (I say God FIXED the laws, others may say it arise spontaneously). When we know HOW certain law operates, we will identify the 'equation' of such law. From such equation, we would know the 'parameters'. THEN Mr Emler, we could 'put' the suitable parameter(s) in the equation... to suit the need of mankind. This is how science helps us (to give a better life in the future). Whether it will allow us to cross the species barrier, is yet unknown. Therefore, when we know the 'whole equation' about 'rejection process', we can modify the parameter(s) and hopefully solve such problem. I say, be optimistic. That is the main 'substrate' for a better future. >> The consequence of any attempt to overcome this law will surely always be the demise of the organism. <<< Not necessarily Mr. Emler. I stress again, when we get the whole picture of 'human immune system' the situation might be different. I say, keep an open mind.... and hope for a brighter future.

>>I speculate that it would be easier for science to overcome the law of gravity, than to successfully cross two different species.<<< Yes, you may do so, that is your right. For me, the future is yet unknown, and I prefer to be optimistic.

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

Johari MA - 07:19pm Aug 7, 1997 ET (#405 of 1108)

John Tal 8/7/97 2:09pm

>>This is preposterous. Genetic variablility is a great asset. Having cloned cows in milk production will require more antibiotics as a single pathogen would effect all cows the same way. Science must ask the question *should* this be done instead of *can* it be done. Science needs to turn from knowledge to wisdom (considering the effects of R&D beyond the next quarterly report).<<< Mr. Tal, your concern is noted...BUT...I say again, be optimistic. I think there will be a solution for the problem you mentioned.... in due time.

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

Tom Anderson - 10:40pm Aug 7, 1997 ET (#406 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

John Tal,

First, we don't have to have the *exact* same cow cloned over and over, but rather a "model" of cow. Just as we clone cars (mass production), not all cars are prone to rolling over. Just as not everyone in a neighborhood owns an Isuzu, a dairy can have several "models" of perfect cow. Secondly, I think that the uniform effect you describe would be a beneficial thing in many cases... just a single predictable reaction, and a single drug for the whole group of animals. And science doesn't have anything to do with the "wisdom" of the application it is used for, just the knowledge itself. However, with knowledge comes wisdom. Please, no more Jurassic Park allusions.

Jeff & Johari,

No, there are not any "laws" of biology. What we observe is simply the result of the process of evolution. They are not "unbreakable", nor are they constant. Immunity to infection developed as a result of viri and bacteria infecting and killing off those that did not develop it. It has nothing to do with the philisophical "self".

Tom

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

Johari MA - 04:52am Aug 8, 1997 ET (#407 of 1108)

Tom Anderson 8/7/97 10:40pm >>No, there are not any "laws" of biology.<<< >>It has nothing to do with the philisophical "self". <<< ;o more extreme generalisation, go study some more Mr. Anderson.....

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

Johari MA - 05:24am Aug 8, 1997 ET (#408 of 1108)

;o These 2 classic 'laws' in Biology are for those who is primitively confused and dreaming out there

"1. Each pair of genes segregates (Mendel 1st law) The two members of a single pair of genes (alleles) pass to different gametes during reproduction

2. The gene pairs show independent assortment (Mendel 2nd law) Members of different gene pairs assort to gametes independently of one another

These two FUNDAMENTAL LAWS may be summarised : alleles segregate, non-alleles assort."

Excerpt from 'Essential Medical Genetics', Prof. Ferguson-Smith, Blackwell Scientific Publications.

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

Carolyn Fensterer - 08:45am Aug 8, 1997 ET (#409 of 1108)

Sheepishly I say let's have no more bull on this subject nor let us be cowed by the possibilities. BUT. . . .how about some specifically directed research on perhaps cloning human organs for transplant purposes. I can truly think of that as a noble, sensible and vitally important project. With all the other wonders we can perform, surely this is not beyond the scope of our scientific minds!

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

EARL F POFAHL - 10:44am Aug 8, 1997 ET (#410 of 1108)

WHY DOES NO ONE NOTICE AND NOT UNDERSTAND WHY HUMANS ON THIS MODERN PLANET EXPERIENCE FAR TOO MUCH SUFFERING. MOST OF THIS SUFFERING IS THE RESULT OF MEDICAL SCIENCE WHICH ALLEVIATED PAIN SHORT TERM AND MULTIPLIES IT LONGTERM.AND LONGTERM IS WHAT REALLY COUNTS. CLONING COULD REDUCE THIS SUFFERING LONG TERM TO VERY MINIMAL LEVELS. HOSPITALS AND PRISONS WOULD BECOME MOSTLY UNNEEDED.

EACH GENERATION CREATES MORE HUMAN TYPES THAT SUFFER THAN THE LAST. CLONING COULD TURN THIS AROUND. LETS REVIEW WHAT GALTON SAID MANY YEARS AGO.

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

Erin Stepno - 02:41pm Aug 8, 1997 ET (#411 of 1108)

I am a law student working on California legislation that will ban for five years research intended to clone entire humans - it does not affect tissue, organ, etc, research. For a journal piece that I'm working on - I need to get more information on an "artificial womb" that I saw for just a few seconds on TV. I believe it was a Greek researcher that was responsible (?) - If anyone knows how to obtain more information on that - please let me know. Thank you. PS - There are many constitutional issues (that I'm reseraching now) that need to be resolved regarding the ban on human cloning...I doubt the controversy has hit its zenith yet.

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

Noel Yap - 04:23pm Aug 8, 1997 ET (#412 of 1108)

Tom Anderson: "As is the case with everything new. Just think, those 486's that nobody would pay a penny for today used to cost thousands!"

Yes.

Peter Moon: "The novel "Brave New World" will finally come a reality!! We can clone people for dirty work that no one else wants. We can also clone humans for intellegence to better ourselves and our planets. We shall clone for the betterment of mankind. It is a future that I for one am trully looking forward too!!"

If you don't value individuality and freedom.

Jay Lockhart: "Also you cannot exclude religion from science, people will intermingle them for many reasons."

Right. I also believe one should balance the other. A spiritual person without logic is as dangerous as a logician without spirituality.

John Tal: "Science must ask the question *should* this be done instead of *can* it be done. Science needs to turn from knowledge to wisdom (considering the effects of R&D beyond the next quarterly report)."

This is exactly what I've been trying to get across. Some people believe otherwise, though, that science should not be slowed down by any balancing force. I believe that there are benefits, but we shouldn't be so blinded that we completely disregard any possible dangers.

lynn shiels: "I would like to say that there are a great many other species that could benefit from these methods. The white rhino, for example, and many other severely endangered species might just have more than a chance of surviving if we are selfless enough to save them and the areas where they live. With so few breeding pairs of some species left, cloning may be the only option if we are to save them from extinction."

I would agree up to a point. If the extinction of the species is natural, we should not interfere. If it's caused by man, cloning would help (to an extent -- we would not be replenishing the gene pool). The hard (probably impossible) part is differentiating the two causes. Since man is probably the cause of most (if not all) extinctions, I guess we should do our best in saving all of them until we learn otherwise.

Johari MA: "<Re: genetic variability and diseases> I think there will be a solution for the problem you mentioned.... in due time."

Possibly by using genetic engineering. This would assume, though, that someone knows what to engineer against specific dangers (ie new viruses).

Tom Anderson: "And science doesn't have anything to do with the "wisdom" of the application it is used for, just the knowledge itself."

This is the problem with Science -- no responsibility.

Tom Anderson: "However, with knowledge comes wisdom."

No, with experience comes wisdom; but only for intelligent beings.

Tom Anderson: "What we observe is simply the result of the process of evolution."

The laws of evolution are based on chaos.

Carolyn Fensterer: "how about some specifically directed research on perhaps cloning human organs for transplant purposes. I can truly think of that as a noble, sensible and vitally important project. With all the other wonders we can perform, surely this is not beyond the scope of our scientific minds!"

I have no doubt that we'll be able to do this one day. The questions that still need to be answered regard any possible dangers that come with this technology.

EARL F POFAHL: "CLONING COULD REDUCE THIS SUFFERING LONG TERM TO VERY MINIMAL LEVELS."

Please lower your voice. At this stage, this is speculation. This is a problem that still needs to be addressed. For example, with cloning, I see longer life spans. This means more people to feed. Since we've got limited resources, there'll be less food per person. Hence, more suffering.

EARL F POFAHL: "HOSPITALS AND PRISONS WOULD BECOME MOSTLY UNNEEDED."

Why prisons?

EARL F POFAHL: "EACH GENERATION CREATES MORE HUMAN TYPES THAT SUFFER THAN THE LAST."

The tech can potentially lead to less suffering. But suffering has increased in the past 'cos pe

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

Sean Iaquinto - 07:00pm Aug 8, 1997 ET (#413 of 1108)

A flaw I forsee with cloning is the process in which the fertilization of the egg will cause future problems. When the egg is first selected by the sperm, and naturally fertilized that is part of the survival process that is inherient in all species.

The weak are dominated by the strong during any survival process, and therefore future generations are stronger because of this process. But what cloning does now is takes any sperm from the creature, and fertilizes it with any egg, rather than choosing the strongest egg and the strongest sperm.

This, for future creatures will cause clones to become more and more infertile as generations are cloned over and over again, because the eggs and sperm that are chosen will not be superior.

(The superiority of the egg and sperm are determined in the early stages of fertilization, in which sperm battle sperm for dominance to fertilize the egg.)

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

Tom Anderson - 07:38pm Aug 8, 1997 ET (#414 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Johari,

Who's generalizing? You gave two "laws" of allele-based genetics... but it is possible to have biology without this property.

Earl, stop yelling!

Noel,

A spiritual person without logic is as dangerous as a logician without spirituality.You have to find another word, because what you define it as is not "spirituality". I somewhat agree with your ideas, but not in what you call it. It is rightfully called emotion, judgement, and respect, not spirituality.

If the extinction of the species is natural, we should not interfere. If it's caused by man...Is man unnatural?

This is the problem with Science -- no responsibility.That is not a problem of science; science is a tool, and it is used to learn reliable information. It is not science's purpose to decide the ethical use of information. You are confusing the the method with some sort of dogma. There isn't a problem with a car just because it can't tell you if your destination is safe... though it may protect you just the same.

Tom Anderson: "What we observe is simply the result of the process of evolution." The laws of evolution are based on chaos.No they're not... well, to a degree. But that is beside the point; we still observe the process nonetheless.

The questions that still need to be answered regard any possible dangers that come with this technology. You don't oppose research on open-heart surgery just because it may result in some deaths, do you?

Since we've got limited resources, there'll be less food per person. But agriculture will be many times more efficient, so there'll be more food per person. But these types of speculations really are irrelevant to the debate at hand... the research must go forward.

Sean,

Go find out what cloning is, cuz you ain't got a clue!

Tom

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

Johari MA - 07:54pm Aug 8, 1997 ET (#415 of 1108)

Tom Anderson 8/8/97 7:38pm >>You gave two "laws" of allele-based genetics... but it is possible to have biology without this property.<<< Mr Anderson, I know you are psychoallergic to such explanation, and I know reality is painful and impalatable for delusional people. Your statement above is a complete testimony of your own confusion. If you have any problem to understanding such 'law' Mr. Anderson, I suggest you email the editor of that book at Pathology Dept. Cambridge Univ ;o.

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

Johari MA - 07:54pm Aug 8, 1997 ET (#415 of 1108)

Tom Anderson 8/8/97 7:38pm >>You gave two "laws" of allele-based genetics... but it is possible to have biology without this property.<<< Mr Anderson, I know you are psychoallergic to such explanation, and I know reality is painful and impalatable for delusional people. Your statement above is a complete testimony of your own confusion. If you have any problem to understanding such 'law' Mr. Anderson, I suggest you email the editor of that book at Pathology Dept. Cambridge Univ ;o.

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

Chris Choate - 01:18am Aug 9, 1997 ET (#416 of 1108)

Cloning is wrong-period. Entropy, the process of when energy changes form it becomes more chaotic, is exactly what has happened with cloning. Science has gained such great technology, it is creating chaos. These cloning companies just want to make money. I don't know why they don't have enough already. Some technology is good, like the computer I am using write now because it makes my life easier, but I doubt that another me would make my life easier, multiplicity made sense, cloning will only cause chaos.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:10am Aug 9, 1997 ET (#417 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Chris,

The problem is that you don't understand the benefits of cloning... just as you would be anti-computers if they did not suit you. It's not about money, it's about progress. I don't know where you are getting this whole entropy/chaos thing from, because it makes no sense. The other problem is that you base your ideas on silly movies that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Multiplicity is not how cloning works.

Tom

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

Tom Anderson - 11:50am Aug 9, 1997 ET (#418 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Johari,

Thanx for ignoring what I said and twisting my words. Again you've said nothing. I've come to count on that; it only makes you look even more ignorant than usual.

Tom

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

Tom Anderson - 11:55am Aug 9, 1997 ET (#419 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Johari,

No where in my statement I said/wrote 'Biology = Genetics' Then you cannot even comprehend your own words; you attempted to give me a "law" of biology, but only gave "laws" (which aren't really laws) of genetics and implied that they are laws of biology. That is a severe generalization. Biology is not something that adheres to laws in the way you claim. In fact, it is an example of a bounded chaotic system, as Noel and I are discussing in the Bible Code board.

Tom

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

Tom Anderson - 03:37pm Aug 9, 1997 ET (#420 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

I don't disagree with the book, Johari, I disagree with what you claimed it said. What you claim is not what the book says. Yes, Mendel discovered "laws" to the degree that all genetics follow this pattern, but this does not apply to the general case of "biology". And the "laws" themselves are not absolutes; they are just what does occur, not what is only possible. Also, atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief. YOU may not be able to accept reality, but that is what I am prepared to do. And please stop implying "I know you are but what am I", because that is exactly what you are doing when you take my criticism of your arguments and try to tell me that I am the one who is doing such. Just take the criticism and live with it. Try reevaluating your beliefs, and maybe you'll stop appearing so foolish.

Tom

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

Johari MA - 04:20pm Aug 9, 1997 ET (#421 of 1108)

Tom Anderson 8/9/97 3:37pm >>Also, atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief. <<<< IT is a belief system Mr. Anderson, no matter how you want to play around with words (talk in circular mode). It is a belief system that 'disbelief god exist'.

No matter how you want to deny it, almost ALL science books used the word 'law'Tom Anderson 8/7/97 10:40pm. If you want to continue with your nonsense and confusion/speculation, go on...I won't be part of it anymore. Finally I remind you again.... Death is a reality. That moment shall come; and only at THAT time, we will know the real fool .....

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

Tom Anderson - 06:33pm Aug 9, 1997 ET (#422 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Johari,

The word "law" is not used in the fashion that you imply. It is not an absolute, in biology, as it is in, say, physics. No, atheism is not a belief, it is logical skepticism. And while death may have been a constant in the past, it is not necessarily such in the future... cloning can possibly bring about real immortality (not imagined immortality as Christians decieve themselves into believing). And, at the moment of death, you will not know anything, as you will not exist anymore.

Tom

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

Noel Yap - 04:36pm Aug 11, 1997 ET (#423 of 1108)

TA: " It is rightfully called emotion, judgement, and respect, not spirituality."

Although spirituality has these attributes, none of these words singly describes it the way I use it. I'll keep searching for better words.

NY: "This is the problem with Science -- no responsibility." TA: "That is not a problem of science; science is a tool, and it is used to learn reliable information."

You're right. What I had meant to say is that, too often, Science does not stress the fact that responsibility lies among the users of the information.

TA: "You don't oppose research on open-heart surgery just because it may result in some deaths, do you?"

I am not concerned about a few deaths, specially if the patients knew of the risks before-hand. What I am concerned about are dangers that are more global in scale, that we have no choice in facing, or (even worse) we don't as yet know about. Gedanken experiments would go a long way in specifying and dealing with these dangers before they become real. So, although I am not opposed to research, I am opposed to undirected, irresponsible research.

TA: "But agriculture will be many times more efficient, so there'll be more food per person."

No matter how efficient agriculture is, there is still a limited amount of resources (ie time, sunlight, space).

SI: "<Re: cloning and fitness>

Cloning does not unite a sperm and an egg. Simplistically, it fertilizes an egg using the complete nucleus of an already mature cell. The details are beyond me.

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

Noel Yap - 04:59pm Aug 11, 1997 ET (#424 of 1108)

JM: "<Re: Mendel's Laws> Your statement above is a complete testimony of your own confusion."

Mendel's Laws are naive. He did a lot to start the field, but much has been learned since his time.

CC: "Entropy, the process of when energy changes form it becomes more chaotic,"

Please don't misuse the word chaos or any of it's derivatives. Chaos is a fairly new branch in mathematics not to be confused with entropy or randomness.

CC: "I don't know why they don't have enough already."

Money is a religion.

CC: "another me would make my life easier"

So don't clone yourself.

TA: "Biology is not something that adheres to laws in the way [Johari] claim[s]."

Biology does adhere to certain "laws" (ie supply and demand, statistics). These laws, however, are far removed from the laws of genetics.

TA: "atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief."

Atheism is a belief system. As per WWWebster: atheism: the doctrine that there is no deity. doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.

TA: "Try reevaluating your beliefs, and maybe you'll stop appearing so foolish."

Maybe it's not Johari's beliefs that need reevaluation, but his conduct towards others.

TA: "death may have been a constant in the past, it is not necessarily such in the future."

I agree.

TA: "cloning can possibly bring about real immortality"

It's a possibility, but I don't believe this. There is no way to replace by brain and keep myself. Immortality will occur when we've found and "fixed" the cause of aging. I was surprised when I heard they've already done this (no, not not through the Enquirer :) -- if anyone's interested in the info, email me.

TA: "at the moment of death, you will not know anything, as you will not exist anymore."

There's no point in continuing this thread. Anything is pure speculation.

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

Tom Anderson - 06:27pm Aug 11, 1997 ET (#425 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

So, although I am not opposed to research, I am opposed to undirected, irresponsible research.I don't know why you would think that cloning research is undirected or irresponsible.

there is still a limited amount of resources (ie time, sunlight, space).If you are going to argue that there are limited resources, then you should use better examples than these: time is eternal (as far as we know), we currently use a fraction of a fraction of one percent of sunlight reaching this planet let alone all sunlight, and space... well, just look up! I understand that perhaps some resources may be limited, like oil, but that is no reason to suggest limiting the human population; problems can be solved without resorting to such an extreme proposal.

Simplistically, it fertilizes an egg using the complete nucleus of an already mature cell. There is no fertilization involved... it is more similar to budding. Or, like plants that have runners that start a new plant (like spider plants, for instance).

Biology does adhere to certain "laws" (ie supply and demand, statistics). These laws, however, are far removed from the laws of genetics.You are using "law" in a general sense, in that it is what is known to occur. However, these "laws" are not unbreakable as in physics; it is not necessary that they do occur.

body of principles in a branch of knowledge Perhaps.

system of beliefNo.

Maybe it's not Johari's beliefs that need reevaluation, but his conduct towards others.Well, that too.

There's no point in continuing this thread. Anything is pure speculationI am quite certain; "body of principles in a branch of knowledge", that is science, is very conclusive: the brain houses the information, the person, and when it dies the information, the person, is no longer.

Tom

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

Noel Yap - 08:12am Aug 12, 1997 ET (#426 of 1108)

Tom Anderson: " I don't know why you would think that cloning research is undirected or irresponsible."

Cloning research in itself is not undirected nor irresponsible. The researchers, however, might be. This is why I would like to have the regulations set goals rather than so-many-year moratoriums.

Tom Anderson: "If you are going to argue that there are limited resources, ..."

I was talking about resources to grow crops and other food sources -- clones need to eat, too. Time to harvest is limited -- where I am, they try to squeeze to crops per season. Space, as in farmland, is limited. We currently don't have a Dyson sphere to use all the sunlight available.

Tom Anderson: "no reason to suggest limiting the human population;"

I don't like the idea of resorting to fascist laws to limit population -- it goes against my beliefs in responsible, respectful, anarchic societies. The population problem and the complications that cloning might bring in should be addressed so we can at least be prepared.

Tom Anderson: "There is no fertilization involved"

Sorry, wrong word.

Tom Anderson: "Or, like plants that have runners that start a new plant (like spider plants, for instance)."

Are you saying that they don't even use an egg?

Tom Anderson: "You are using "law" in a general sense, in that it is what is known to occur. However, these "laws" are not unbreakable as in physics; it is not necessary that they do occur."

Yes, but that is how I view the Laws of Conservation.

Tom Anderson: "the brain houses the information, the person, and when it dies the information, the person, is no longer."

You're assuming there is nothing outside of science.

But I'm glad you brought this up. What is information? It certainly is contained within our brain's neural nets or within the bits of our computers. But one bit is not information, neither are randomly set bits. So, what is the physics behind information?

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

Tom Anderson - 10:21pm Aug 12, 1997 ET (#427 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

Cloning research in itself is not undirected nor irresponsible. The researchers, however, might be. This is why I would like to have the regulations set goals rather than so-many-year moratoriums. Still a little off; it's not the researchers that are responsible for the use of the knowledge either... they just learn it. It is not researchers that are going to apply the knowledge. However, the people that will apply the knowledge don't care how complete it is... if they want to use it for less-than-beneficial ends, they will do it before all is known, and that is more dangerous than anything you speak of. It is best to learn everything first; this way we can make educated decisions and not base our choices on fear.

The population problem and the complications that cloning might bring in should be addressed so we can at least be prepared. I don't know why I ever let us get entangled in this conversation... there are no population problems caused through cloning. It is just another form to create a person... not the wanton multiplication that so many seem to think. You should be more fearful of people on welfare having ten children in order to squeeze more money out of us. And they do it using sex (imagine that!).

Are you saying that they don't even use an egg? Oh, they use sexual reproduction as well, but that is a less reliable and much slower way to reproduce quickly. Haven't you ever seen a spider plant? They have little plants shooting off of them... as soon as the roots of the offspring find some soil or water, the connection begins to rot, and the new clone is free to grow. Another example: starfish.

Yes, but that is how I view the Laws of Conservation. That is wrong; but this is the wrong message board... we were discussing this over in the Bible Code board (don't worry, I'll answer it soon enough, time allowing).

You're assuming there is nothing outside of science. No, I'm assuming knowledge gained through science is more reliable than that gained through authoritative sources such as religion. And that is a good assumption.

But I'm glad you brought this up. What is information? It certainly is contained within our brain's neural nets or within the bits of our computers. But one bit is not information, neither are randomly set bits. So, what is the physics behind information? I'm not sure what you mean. A bit is information... it is either on or off. That is the most reduced form of a binary information system, and the simplist conceivable way to represent information. It is either true or false. However, the human brain does not work that way... it works by association.

Tom

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

Noel Yap - 03:46pm Aug 13, 1997 ET (#428 of 1108)

Tom Anderson: "it's not the researchers that are responsible for the use of the knowledge either"

OK.

Tom Anderson: "they just learn it. It is not researchers that are going to apply the knowledge."

Right, but I think that it should also be the researchers' responsibility to disseminate this knowledge to the public and provide a proper direction. They are the one's who would best understand the technologies and their consequences. This is akin to saying that a teacher's role is not just to teach, but also to provide guidance.

Tom Anderson: "However, the people that will apply the knowledge don't care how complete it is... if they want to use it for less-than-beneficial ends, they will do it before all is known,"

Well, then, my stipulation that stated goals must be set and met before further research is done helps prevent unwise progress. When more is known through more research, more goals can be set. This can be considered an iterative R&D process. They probably do things iteratively now, but I'm not sure if their processes account for ethics.

Tom Anderson: "It is best to learn everything first;"

Perhaps in an academic environment this is true. But real projects never know everything. So, we must learn things in steps; the researchers should choose how big those steps are.

Tom Anderson: "there are no population problems caused through cloning."

In theory. Practice always has complications.

Tom Anderson: "You should be more fearful of people on welfare having ten children in order to squeeze more money out of us."

Here's a good case in point. Now that it's easier to have children -- you wouldn't even have to find a father -- welfare moochers would have a ball.

Tom Anderson: "They have little plants shooting off of them..."

Well, I was asking about cloning techniques. Do they use an egg? Or do they somehow get a normal cell to start dividing?

Tom Anderson: "A bit is information..."

Yes, but information is not necessarily a bit. For example, our neural nets don't encode information as bits; information is inherently held within the architecture of the net itself. So, what is information? Is there a Law of Conservation of Information? Maybe we should continue this thread on the Bible Code board (where it's more applicable).

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

Tom Anderson - 12:44am Aug 15, 1997 ET (#429 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

Tom Anderson: "there are no population problems caused through cloning." In theory. Practice always has complications.No, no, there are no population problems caused by cloning. It is just another way to make a zygote, not wanton multiplication. There is nothing that is new to cloning that could possibly effect overpopulation that does not now exist with sexual reproduction.

Now that it's easier to have children -- you wouldn't even have to find a father -- welfare moochers would have a ball.Do you really believe that was ever a problem for them?

Well, I was asking about cloning techniques. Do they use an egg? Or do they somehow get a normal cell to start dividing?Currently they use an egg, but it is entirely possible to stimulate a cell to act as a zygote on its own, it just hasn't been done yet (to my knowledge anyway).

Yes, but information is not necessarily a bit. So what's your point?

So, what is information? I don't quite understand the question. Information is any non-random pattern. Well, that is the best definition I can give you at this time anyway; try an information theory book.

Tom

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

Ian Clarke - 09:00am Sep 10, 1997 ET (#430 of 1108)

Tom,

Just a minor aside,

"Information is any non-random pattern"

Actually the opposite is true, the more random the pattern the more information contained within it. A pattern such as '1111111111111111111111111111111111' has almost no information in it, where as a pattern such as '46527345683876457' has quite a bit.

Ian.

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

Jones Melissa - 03:38pm Sep 10, 1997 ET (#431 of 1108)

I have a questions please excuse my ignorance but what is the point and reason for cloning

Johnny

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

Tom Anderson - 07:43pm Sep 10, 1997 ET (#432 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ian,

Actually the opposite is true, the more random the pattern the more information contained within it. A pattern such as '1111111111111111111111111111111111' has almost no information in it, where as a pattern such as '46527345683876457' has quite a bit. There is no information in either of them or there is in both of them. However, you must know if it is information; and the only way you can know if it is information is if it is nonrandom, for instance '...4652734561011001101100183876457...' contains information because there is order within randomness.

Johnny,

what is the point and reason for cloning You should read the entire board, especially the first fifty or so posts. Research, cures for diseases and cancers, improved bio-products like milk and wool, better understanding of genetic vs environmental traits, improved transplant, and possible immortality -- just to name a few.

Tom

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

Cliff Beall - 11:42pm Sep 12, 1997 ET (#433 of 434)

Tom,

Research is a point or reason for cloning? It seems to me that research is not, or at least, should not be, an end unto itself. Research should have a purpose other than research, itself.

Cures for diseases and cancers? How so, unless you take the position that experimentation on a human clone would somehow be different and more acceptable than experimentation on a "normal" human being?

Improved bio-products like milk and wool? To improve a breed, natural variation is needed from which the best milk or wool producers can be selected. While cloning of the current best of breed might result in an immediate increased production, since more of the current best might presumably be available, it would likely tend to forestall future improvements in a breed, and actually be counter-productive in the long run.

Better understanding of genetic vs environmental traits? Valid enough, I suppose, but I would think that twin research would be as valid as clone research, without the need to clone a human.

Improved transplant and possible immortality? I suppose that you must be thinking about how an organ transplant from a "normal" human to a human clone could be used to save the life of a clone? (If I were to suppose that, would I be correct?)

Cliff

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

Tom Anderson - 02:06am Sep 14, 1997 ET (#434 of 434)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

Sure. Why shouldn't we research better methods of doing research? We develop better tools for different jobs all the time... but the tools are just ways to get something else. So, according to your thinking, we should be sending written letters via pony express instead of electronically through these fancy computers.

This goes along with better research methods... by comparing the genes and traits of otherwise identical genomes, it is simple to weed out the variations which cause the disease.

Absolutely. We needn't accept the products nature gives us by natural evolution, and we never have. It is just another step to select the animals we created for the products we need.

Again, this goes with better research methods... waiting for twins to be born, and then performing observations and experiments with them and no control, is very sloppy and rather inconclusive research. And, I don't believe this necessarily must be done with people; much can be learned by cloning chimps and other animals.

I mean that it is possible to clone your own organs for transplant into yourself without fear of rejection. That includes all and any of your organs (except, of course, your brain, since that IS you, but even that perhaps in the future). Thus, immortality.

Tom

Nothing wrong with that, but what does it have to do with cloning?

A good reason for genetics research. But what does that have to do with cloning?

Artificially selecting from the variety presented by nature is a proven method. How is cloning another step? If it is a step, I suspect it is a false step. Can you show a mechanism by which cloning an existing animal gives any possibility of improving the breed?

Exactly what kind of controls did you have in mind?

That is what I thought you meant. The problem is that you do not clone a heart or a liver. Instead you clone a duplicate of yourself, a human being that contains the heart or liver you need. To get the heart or liver for transplant, you would have to kill the clone. But the clone you must kill is a unique individual, a person, a human, and, in my opinion, once born into this world, is just as deserving of life as you.

Cliff

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

Noel Yap - 07:30am Sep 15, 1997 ET (#436 of 440)

By control, do you mean controlling the environment in which these clones grow up?

I've got the same moral objections to this as I would have for humans. More specifically, it's not the cloning that I'm against, it's the limiting of the freedom of any being.

Cloning, at least for now, needs a complete organism to develop. If, at some point, we learn how to clone individual organs, I would guess that we would also be able to produce them in an artificial environment. This, however, is pure speculation; we'll have to wait and see. But, I believe we should not develop any technologies before we are ready to handle them. It seems, Tom, that you assume humanity is mature, rational, and intelligent. Although I've seen some people who are, in general, humanity is child-like, irrational, and stupid.

We could mate clones of the best produce, thereby increasing their reproduction rate. By keeping a stock of several different clones, we would temporarily keep a variation of genomes.

This is a legal issue.

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

Keith Fosberg - 10:37am Sep 15, 1997 ET (#437 of 440)

The fun goes on!

This subject can, will and has been beaten to a pulp. There are numerous reasons to perform research involving cloning as there are numerous ethical considerations.

It seems that a more fruitfull debate vis a vis cloning would be to define how ethical issues should be approached since no one can stuff an idea back into a box.

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

Erik Coleman - 10:57am Sep 16, 1997 ET (#438 of 440)

I agree with Keith. This subject has been debated for years and everyone can either find a good point or a bad point. What if they made a clone of one of you or me. They could replace you and maybe they would be better than you or me. They could use you for crimes and other bad things.

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

Tom Anderson - 04:51pm Sep 16, 1997 ET (#439 of 440)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Erik,

I suggest you learn what cloning is (in the form being discussed here) before making such rediculous statements. There is no way that an adult and his clone could ever look similar at the same time... there would always be an age gap of however old the parent was when the clone was born. Although I have seen some mother-daughter pairs that look amazingly similar, there is always a distinguishable age difference.

If you plan on suggesting any other rediculous scenarios, you should first read the entire board where they have already been discounted by me or some other rational thinking person.

Tom

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

Cliff Beall - 12:53am Sep 17, 1997 ET (#440 of 440)

Noel Yap: Cloning, at least for now, needs a complete organism to develop. If, at some point, we learn how to clone individual organs...

It may be possible to create artificial organs that function as well as the natural variety. This would be great since it eliminates the moral issues. But that is not what we are talking about.

Keith Fosberg: This subject can, will and has been beaten to a pulp.

What do you mean? I'm just getting started. I'm tired of the Bible Codes board anyway. This is more fun.

Erik Coleman: What if they made a clone of one of you or me. They could replace you and maybe they would be better than you or me. They could use you for crimes and other bad things.

Yeah, it opens up all sorts of things. But, who knows. If they made a clone of Al Capone, he might turn out to be a preacher. Might be a good one too. Identical twins sometimes have widely differing occupations.

Tom Anderson: If you plan on suggesting any other rediculous scenarios, you should first read the entire board...

Say what? Who says that the dribble in the four hundred or so previous posts is any better than my dribble?

Cliff

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

Cliff Beall - 02:00am Sep 17, 1997 ET (#441 of 442)

Cliff

Noel, I missed one. It really isn't very important, but...

Why would you want to mate clones when you could more easily mate the original stock? The process of mating clones of the original stock would be exactly the same as mating the original stock, except it would involve a delay while the clones matured. My question is, why would you want to do such a thing? Yeah you could do it, but what is the added value?

Cliff

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

Noel Yap - 07:19am Sep 17, 1997 ET (#442 of 442)

Cliff Beall: Why would you want to mate clones when you could more easily mate the original stock?

You could conceivably have more than one clone of each of the stocks. So instead of mating F with M, you could mate F0 with M0, F1 with M1, F2 with M2, ... This would increase the rate at which you produce better stock. Yes, you would still need to wait for the clones to mature, but at least now you'll have several identical stock to mate when they're ready.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:20am Sep 18, 1997 ET (#443 of 443)

Noel Yap: You could conceivably have more than one clone of each of the stocks...

Noel, suppose you have a herd of cattle which you wish to upgrade, what do you do? The traditional answer is: get a good bull, and replace the less productive cows, as you can, with the new heifers that come alone. It is generally considered permissible to inbreed the second generation cows when they mature to the same bull (or, at least, it was forty years ago, when I was a kid growing up on a farm). However, when the third generation of heifers mature, it is time to replace the bull with another one from another bull farm. Inbreeding the third generation of heifers with the same bull is just too much inbreeding, especially considering that the bull is probably a product of inbreeding already. Therefore, you need new blood.

So what is the point? For breeding purposes, cloning is of no help. Sure, you can increase the number of animals of a superior type by cloning the superior animals. I understand that, and have from the beginning. But really all that you have done is increase the number of animals that you can't breed. I think it should be clear that, in this respect, at least, cloning provides no added value.

Cliff

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

Noel Yap - 07:09am Sep 18, 1997 ET (#444 of 444)

I think you misunderstand my point. There doesn't have to be just one superior animal. Suppose you have fifty or a hundred (or whatever the threshhold is to guarantee a varied gene pool) superior bull clones. They can then be bred at a faster rate than if you had just one bull of each. The same holds for cows.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:08pm Sep 18, 1997 ET (#445 of 451)

Noel, I think I understand your point. I have already stated that I agree that you can increase the number of animals of a superior type by cloning the superior animals. In addition, it is obvious to me that if you have more animals to breed (whether cloned or not), you can breed offspring more rapidly. However, I think you missed my point. Remember two things:

1. Cloning, by its very nature, does not increase the gene pool.

2. Significant improvements in a breed sometimes comes from unexpected sources.

Lets talk race horses. From time to time, a horse with relatively unimpressive bloodlines from a small farm is capable of running faster than horses with impeccable bloodlines from a large farm. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. (Presumably this is due to an unexpected favorable combination of genes, or perhaps a favorable mutation.)

Now suppose cloning of race horses became cheap and popular. The small farms might then be able to obtain clones of race horses with impeccable bloodlines. They become competitive much sooner, and will no longer need to spend years exploring the less impressive bloodlines, since they can now play with the big boys immediately using clones with impeccable bloodlines. But wait a minute. What has happened here? We have more horses of a superior quality, but the gene pool has actually narrowed! How can this possibly represent an overall improvement? That's why I say it looks good in the beginning, but in the long run, it is counter-productive.

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

Noel Yap - 07:18am Sep 19, 1997 ET (#446 of 451)

Cliff Beall: That's why I say it looks good in the beginning, but in the long run, it is counter-productive.

I would have to agree with you. The only thing we can do to prevent stagnation is to purposefully increase the gene pool (possibly through advanced -- not just copying and pasting the way we do now -- genetic engineering) every now and then.

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

Sohail Zia - 04:34pm Sep 25, 1997 ET (#447 of 451)

<continued from Sohail Zia - 04:16am Jun 23, 1997 ET> Cloning And Ethics

Every issue known to us is a human issue, so is the issue of cloning... Solving any issue requires understanding i.e. knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge alone will prove insufficient.... Wisdom requires ethics which come from belief.... Belief vary, so the ethics are changed and consequently the wisdom required, for decision making is also changed among people....

There are people who believe in Creator in different ways and those who do not. For atheists, the fact is that they don't find God in any physical or materially detectable form. For the believers of Creator their logic cannot vision the existence and intelligence of nature without the Creator of nature. Believers of God (without a direct vision of God), believe the life after death, without any material or physical proof, so the eternal life together with the Day Of Justice, influence their present life and ethics. Thus the wisdom of a believer in creator varies than that of an atheist.

Right now there are more believers of God than atheists. The reason that their are more believers than atheists is that the belief of creator is also instinctive to human nature otherwise the believers of God would have been vanished from earth.

Among creations only humans, to human knowledge, act as vice creator. One of the result of human creation could be, that only a vice creator is capable of admiring the creations of Real Creator (in my personal view). But one of the side effects I have observed is that some of these vice creators, when learned a little of the sciences of nature, think themselves to be the creator and god; forgetting all together the intelligent mechanism of their own creation; straight away. There is also one misunderstanding among many that by growing a clone they think that humans have created some thing. In actual humans can only produce whatever nature allows within its predefined rules (ref. message #5, #12). <cont.>

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

Cliff Beall - 12:38am Sep 26, 1997 ET (#448 of 451)

Sohail,

Are you suggesting that believers in a creator are somehow more moral, have higher ethical standards, and greater wisdom than non-believers?

Cliff

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

Noel Yap - 07:43am Sep 26, 1997 ET (#449 of 451)

Cliff Beall: Are you suggesting that believers in a creator are somehow more moral, have higher ethical standards, and greater wisdom than non-believers?

What I got from Sohail Zia's post is that people who believe in an external force are more apt to remember that they are part of a bigger whole. They are less apt to misuse technologies and disrupt the delicate balance in which we live. Being a believer is not the only way to be reminded of this truth, but it does help.

So, as it applies to cloning, the technology in itself is neither good nor bad. But, we won't know whether we misuse it or not unless we have wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience or planning. We cannot have the experience unless we develop the technology. We can, however, plan ahead. Planning takes much longer than acquiring experience through trial and error, but it's much safer. Did you know that some American Indian tribes thought as far as seven generations ahead when making large decisions? We, as an instant-gratification society, don't even think about the effects our actions will have on our children. Why else would we keep using nuclear technologies, toxic chemicals, and, in general, act as if there were an infinite resource pool and an infinite dump?

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

Sohail Zia: Right now there are more believers of God than atheists. The reason that their are more believers than atheists is that the belief of creator is also instinctive to human nature otherwise the believers of God would have been vanished from earth.

I view religion as parental guidance. Currently, there are more believers than non-believers 'cos humanity is still young. As it matures, it will (or, more pessimistically, should) learn to guide itself. It is not necessary to make humanity an orphan to eliminate structured religions.

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

Noel,

Are you suggesting that believers in a creator are somehow more moral, have higher ethical standards, and greater wisdom than non-believers?

Cliff

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

Cliff Beall: Are you suggesting that believers in a creator are somehow more moral, have higher ethical standards, and greater wisdom than non-believers?

No, I suggested that believers in a creator are more apt to have higher ethical standards 'cos they have that much more reason to be. Unfortunately, many of these believers never really assess their own actions towards others; so, my conclusion may be faulty.

Morality is subjective (ie Christianity has different morals than Satanism.)

Wisdom comes with understanding. Understanding comes from questioning. Therefore, people with blind faith would be less apt to be wise. This doesn't mean that they don't know what's right and what's wrong, only that they won't really understand what makes it right or wrong.

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

Noel, with regard to wisdom, you are right. Blind faith does not lead to wisdom. It also does not lead to good morality or high ethical standards. Blind faith merely leads to more blind faith.

Now you might think that believers would fear the wrath of God when they misbehave. But, it is my observation that it does not work that way. As an example, I would cite the institution of slavery in the south. Most southern slave owners were Bible-thumping, God fearing believers who justified slavery on the basis of the teachings of the Bible, and even equated it with righteousness. (They didn't fear the wrath of God; they thought God was on their side.)

I am certainly not comfortable with leaving the moral issues having to do with cloning to "believers." They might decide it is "moral" to use clones as spare body parts. (After all, they have their own self interest, and God on their side.)

Do some believers have high morals, high ethical standards and much wisdom. Certainly. Does morality, ethics and wisdom have any correlation with belief in God. Not as far as I can tell.

Cliff

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

Are you suggesting that believers in a creator are somehow more moral, have higher ethical standards, and greater wisdom than non-believers? Hey, Cliff, here's the answer you were waiting for: YES!

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

Cliff Beall: Does morality, ethics and wisdom have any correlation with belief in God. Not as far as I can tell.

I guess my logic didn't take into account the folly of humans.

j.graye: here's the answer you were waiting for: YES!

Now that Cliff has mentioned it and got me thinking about it more, I see more non-believers striking a good balance between societal and individual needs. Also, I see many more believers who don't as compared to non-believers.

Perhaps this is 'cos non-believers are more apt to think about their actions beforehand? But this would mean that these non-believers already have "good" goals in mind.

Or, perhaps, it's 'cos I don't see the serial killers, rapists, ... -- both believers and non-believers.

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

J., you are a little late. I have already made as much of an argument as I plan to make at this time. The main thing I want to avoid right now is the suggestion that believers are necessarily of a lower morality, have lower ethical standards and less wisdom than non-believers. I could cite some recent examples of the sins of religious people, but it would be beside the point. Comparable sins of atheistic and agnostics are also available.

Noel, in the first paragraph of your response to J., I think you may have gone a little overboard. I didn't intend to be that persuasive. I admit that the example I gave was a powerful one, but people are capable of rationalizing their behavior any number of ways. Rationalizing bad behavior in terms of a belief system is just one of them. (I note that you became your balanced self in the following two paragraphs, however.)

Cliff

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ethics has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a creator. Ethics are a way of making civilization work; we have ethics because we are social animals... other social animals have ethics as well, and they certainly aren't so asinine as to have religion. What makes an act right or wrong is not something divinely ordained but how it effects the way society functions. Was slavery ethical? Yes, it was perfectly ethical for the slave owners because it allowed them to have a civilization. However, it was not ethical in terms of humanity because one group of humans exploited and dehumanized another. In the larger point of view, it was counterproductive to civilization as a whole even if it had a positive effect on a smaller subset. Is cloning of humans ethical? How could it possibly have a negative impact on society? The act of reproduction through cloning does not influence the way people behave at all; if there are any repercussions of it, they are due to other faults in people and should be corrected at the source of the problems, not at the specific irritants of the source. The problem people are having with cloning is not whether it is ethical, but whether it agrees with their religion. Unfortunately, the two are mistakenly correlated much too often.

Tom

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

Tom Anderson: [slavery] was not ethical in terms of humanity because one group of humans exploited and dehumanized another. In the larger point of view, it was counterproductive to civilization as a whole even if it had a positive effect on a smaller subset.

You could say the same about capitalism.

Tom Anderson: if there are any repercussions of [cloning], they are due to other faults in people and should be corrected at the source of the problems, not at the specific irritants of the source.

I agree, but we should really at least try to figure out what repercussions there might be so we could try to fix it before the irritant is introduced.

Tom Anderson: Unfortunately, [ethics and morality] are mistakenly correlated much too often.

I agree.

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

Tom Anderson: Was slavery ethical? Yes, it was perfectly ethical for the slave owners because it allowed them to have a civilization.

I take it, then, that civilization dissolved when slavery was ended?

Tom Anderson: Unfortunately, [ethics and morality] are mistakenly correlated much too often.

Noel Yap: I agree.

Noel, I think you misstated Tom's quote. Tom referred to religion, not morality. I think that it is morality and religion that are mistakenly correlated too often. It is my opinion that there is no correlation between religion and morality, whatever. Religion is a belief system. Morality is being in accord with standards of right conduct, and, as such, is also closely related to character. Ethics has to do with specific conduct based on one's morality and one's character.

Cliff

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

Cliff Beall: It is my opinion that there is no correlation between religion and morality, whatever.

Religion defines morality. The moralities found among Protestants, Catholics, and Satan-worshippers differ.

Cliff Beall: Religion is a belief system.

Yes.

Cliff Beall: Morality is being in accord with standards of right conduct, and, as such, is also closely related to character.

But the "right" conduct is defined by the religion. For example, what is objectively wrong with group sex among consenting adults?

Cliff Beall: Ethics has to do with specific conduct based on one\222s morality and one\222s character.

I think I agree more with Tom's definition of it being conduct that is beneficial to, or at least not detrimental to, society.

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

You could say the same about capitalism [as you did about slavery]. You like to do that; I hate it when you do that. You take what I say and stretch it somewhere it doesn't quite fit. Capitalism in essence boils down to "you get what you pay for, and you get payed for what work you do". Ideally, these should be proportional. One way to work for your pay is to make intelligent decisions, rather than just manual labor. Those who are the smartest are able to think of things which those who work hard manually are willing to pay for. That is the defining characteristic of being human -- out-thinking the competition. People often see the wealth and control of those who think their way into these positions as unjustly gotten, but they competed with everyone else in the system and came out on top. There is nothing unethical about being better than other people. However, to use an edge on the competition to force it to submissive obedience is unethical because it devalues humanity; and, although a slave-owning civilization can exist (and has for millenia), it will ultimately be a lesser quality of life since exploitation can never be confined, but must be removed. The values of slavery eventually work their way into all relationships. In many cases, this has happened in our own past (such as U.S. factory-owners a century ago). However, that was unethical and has been resolved just as political slavery in the form of monarchies and dictatorships and personal (racial) slavery has in the past as well.

<cont...>

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

In conclusion, I think you are comparing antiparallel institutions. Slavery can exist in economics just as it can in politics, in warfare, and in personal relationships, but none of these can be a subset of slavery. Therefore, slavery can exist in capitalism, but capitalism is not slavery. The major difference between slavery-riddled capitalism and slavery-free capitalism is that competition is promoted in the latter while it is crushed in the former, practically redifining it as something other than capitalism.

Similarly, you can have science within ethics, but ethics can never exist in science... as soon as science is done subjectively, it is no longer science. We can, however, and rightly should make ethical decisions when it comes to applying science in the form of technology. So, should we research the mechanisms of reproduction which allow cloning? YES. Should we use them as a form of reproduction? Probably. Should we use them to make a biological weapon? Probably not... even if it were possible.

<cont...>

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

we should really at least try to figure out what repercussions there might be so we could try to fix it before the irritant is introduced. Of course we should, but that should not stop the progress in the least. It is like saying "we should not develop a cure for AIDS since a group of people think it would be infringing on god's power to kill immoral people"! Cloning is an incredibly wonderful advance and should not be halted on the grounds of myth.

Tom Anderson: Unfortunately, [ethics and religion] are mistakenly correlated much too often.

Noel Yap: "Unfortunately, [ethics and morality] are mistakenly correlated much too often."

Cliff Beall: Tom referred to religion, not morality. I think that it is morality and religion that are mistakenly correlated too often.

I agree with Noel's misinterpretation... morality and religion are interdependent whereas ethics is independent of both of them. Morality is defined by dogma; most often the dogma of religion -- that is, morality is ordained by a "higher being". Ethics has nothing to do with a "higher being", only by ourselves as a community. For instance, right now I am listening to death metal, which many would call possibly satanic and certainly immoral due to impious lyrics, and yet there is no ethical issue at all since it effects nobody but myself (well, maybe my neighbor too).

<cont...>

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

The best way to define ethics is how everyone would have to act in order to have a civil anarchy.

As such, cloning is not an ethical issue, but a moral one. Living in a secular society (by law), nobody has the right to stop me or anyone else from pursuing this knowledge.

Tom

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

Noel Yap: Religion defines morality. The moralities found among Protestants, Catholics, and Satan-worshippers differ.

Since I know almost nothing about Satan-Worshippers, I guess I will have to pass on that. I would suppose that most people who claim to be Satan-Worshippers have tongue planted firmly in cheek, but I am just guessing. However, I do know a number of Protestants, a number of Catholics and at least one agnostic (myself).

That I am an agnostic is not really by choice. I repeatedly tried to be a born-again Christian in my youth. I just never could convince myself anything had actually happened. (In my church, the process involved going forward and kneeling at the altar--usually following a hell-fire and brimstone sermon--and "praying through."). After each attempt to become born again, I carefully examined myself to determine if it had happen. In each case, I found, to my sorrow, that I was the same old Cliff I had always been. (For example, I still liked baseball, I still wanted to go to movies on Saturday night, and I still had that demon lust in my heart.) Thus, there was no mistake about it. I was still a sinner. Eventually, I came to the realization that I was doomed. During a period of several years, I fully expected to go to Hell when I died, and I believed that there was absolutely nothing that I could do about it. Eventually, I was saved from this expectation from an unexpected source, a book on the deciphering of ancient languages that made mention, in passing, of "problems" with the Book of Daniel, and gave a couple of examples. Shortly afterwards, I discovered Bible scholarship and form criticism. And along the way, I learned about the origin of Hell and the Devil, and how, and why, those concepts were invented. After that, I no longer feared the prospect of going to Hell.

I think I have above demonstrated a rather dramatic shift in my belief system. Nevertheless, neither my sense of morals, nor my ethical standards

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

(cont.) have changed as a result. I am the same old Cliff I have always been. Perhaps I am an exception, but I think not. I have more than a superficial acquaintance with religious people who consider themselves Protestants having grown up with some of them, and I can tell you that they tend to like baseball and movies and have that demon lust in their hearts just the same as me. As for Catholics, I first became acquainted with Catholics in the Navy. There was this one guy I knew, in particular, who was particularly susceptible to that demon lust. He just couldn't get enough of it. Finally, we pulled into a port that had a Catholic church, and he went to confession. When he came back from confession, and as we were steaming out of port, it was all he could talk about, and I wondered if he had really changed. My answer came a couple of weeks later when we again pulled into port, and he couldn't wait to go ashore to, in his words, get a piece.

My conclusion is that religion does not define morality.

Cliff

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

Noel Yap: But the "right" conduct is defined by the religion. For example, what is objectively wrong with group sex among consenting adults?

Right conduct is not defined by religion. People define right conduct, and people define religion too. Group sex is not my style, but I try not to be too judgmental with respect to things that do not adversely affect me or others. I might suggest that people who do this sort of thing consider using some type of contraception since I think a kid ought to know who his father is, but I think there are a lot of things that are a lot worse than group sex among consenting adults.

Cliff Beall: Ethics has to do with specific conduct based on one's morality and one's character.

Noel Yap: I think I agree more with Tom's definition of it being conduct that is beneficial to, or at least not detrimental to, society.

Well, there are two kinds of ethics, group ethics (professional etc.) and personal ethics.

I was addressing personal ethics, but they are really the same thing. Ethics is a system or code of morals of a particular person, religion, group or profession. Right conduct is conduct beneficial to society as well as to other individuals within the group with which we have intercourse.

Cliff

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

You still have it wrong. You are equating ethics and morals, but they are very distinct. You said that you feared going to hell because you were immoral. Then, when you became agnostic, you said that your morals hadn't changed, but they did change if you no longer felt you were going against them. Your religion told you not to act a certain way... they dictated your morality. When you left your religion, you no longer had your morality, only your ethics. "I try not to be too judgmental with respect to things that do not adversely affect me or others." -- that is the major difference between morals and ethics.

Tom

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

Tom Anderson: You are equating ethics and morals, but they are very distinct.

I disagree. I think that one's ethics has a direct relationship to one's morals, and religion has no relationship whatever to either.

Tom Anderson: Then, when you became agnostic, you said that your morals hadn't changed, but they did change if you no longer felt you were going against them. Your religion told you not to act a certain way... they dictated your morality.

I do not think I ever actually believed there was anything specifically wrong with baseball, movies or sex. It was just that I had been led to believe--by misguided, but sincere people, and their "talk the talk" which I took literally--that after being born again, I would no longer be interested in things of the flesh, and would instead be interested in spiritual things. It was just a test I used to see if I had truly been born into a new nature. Looking back, I think that if I had been a little less exacting in my requirements for evidence, or if I had been more mature and seen behind the "talk the talk," I would, undoubtedly, be a Christian today. Would my morals or ethical standards be significantly different? I don't think so.

Regarding my friend, the Catholic: whether he considered his fornication to be wrong or not, I don't know, but he seemed to take pride in his conquests. He bragged enough about them. Then, from time to time, when it was convenient, he went to confession. Obviously, his religion did not dictate his morals. Instead, his religion was like a compensating factor. He could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to do it, as long as he periodically went to confession.

Now, perhaps you think my friend is an extreme example. I don't. I think he is the rule. Some time ago, I saw a bumper sticker that read: "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." I think it was a Baptist sticker, but it reminded me of my Catholic friend of long ago.

Cliff

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

I do not think I ever actually believed there was anything specifically wrong with baseball, movies or sex.

Your ethics didn't, but your protestant morals did.

Would my morals or ethical standards be significantly different?

Yes, your morals would say that flesh things are immoral and spiritual things are moral. I assume from what you wrote that that is not your current belief.

Obviously, his religion did not dictate his morals.

Why do you think he went to confession? Because he believed it was wrong.

He could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to do it, as long as he periodically went to confession.

And that is one of the dangers of religion.

Tom

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

Cliff Beall: Would my morals or ethical standards be significantly different?

Tom Anderson: Yes, your morals would say that flesh things are immoral and spiritual things are moral. I assume from what you wrote that that is not your current belief.

What? I have already stipulated that my belief system changed dramatically after I discovered Bible scholarship and form criticism. I was referring to my morals and ethical standards. By ethical standards, I mean my relative capacity or willingness to lie, cheat, steal, kill or otherwise mistreat my fellow man. By morals, I mean my sense of right and wrong on which my ethical standards are based. My sense of morality and my ethical standards have not changed significantly despite the dramatic change in my beliefs.

Cliff Beall: Obviously, his religion did not dictate his morals.

Tom Anderson: Why do you think he went to confession? Because he believed it was wrong.

I think it was more that he thought God thought it was wrong, but that as long as he went to confession, God would let him get by with it.

Tom Anderson: And that is one of the dangers of religion.

What danger? As an atheist, you can do whatever you want, whenever you want to do it, and you don't even have to go to confession. What is the difference?

Cliff

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

What? I have already stipulated that my belief system changed dramatically after I discovered Bible scholarship and form criticism. I was referring to my morals and ethical standards. By ethical standards, I mean my relative capacity or willingness to lie, cheat, steal, kill or otherwise mistreat my fellow man. By morals, I mean my sense of right and wrong on which my ethical standards are based.

Before, you thought it was wrong to like "baseball, movies, and sex" and that is why you felt guilty. Now you do not. Your morals changed.

I think it was more that he thought God thought it was wrong

Precisely! That is what morals are... what "God" says is wrong. Not what is ethically right or wrong.

What danger? As an atheist, you can do whatever you want, whenever you want to do it, and you don't even have to go to confession. What is the difference?

I don't compromise my ethics because I know that there is no forgiveness or redemption. I take full responsibility for my actions. I'm not going to go out and kill someone in God's name (like Christians routinely kill abortion doctors, homosexuals, atheists, Jews, etc., because they think it is what God wants and therefore is moral). But I also know that it is silly to think that sex is evil (unless in the form of rape). Morals are just religious tradition and are not logically reasonable for the most part. Ethics are basically what laws are based on... at least in this country, whatever allows society to function while impeding on citizen's rights the least.

Tom

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

Tom, this discussion is becoming absurd:

Cliff Beall: "Obviously, his religion did not dictate his morals."

Tom Anderson: "Why do you think he went to confession? Because he believed it was wrong."

Cliff Beall: "I think it was more that he thought God thought it was wrong, but that as long as he went to confession, God would let him get by with it."

Tom Anderson: "Precisely! That is what morals are... what "God" says is wrong. Not what is ethically right or wrong."

It seem to me that the major problem with the discussion is a difference in definitions. I suggest we use the following definitions from Webster's New World Dictionary:

religion: 2. a) any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy [the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion etc.] b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such as system [humanism as a religion]

moral: 1. relating to, dealing with, or capable of making a distinction between, right and wrong in conduct 2. Good or right in conduct or character; sometimes, specif., virtuous in sexual conduct

ethics: 1. the study of standards of conduct and moral judgement; moral philosophy 3. the system or code of morals of a particular person, religion, group, profession, etc.

Based on the above set of definitions, contrary to your assertion that morals are what "God" says is wrong, morals have to do with one's capacity to make a distinction between right and wrong. I don't need "God" to tell me. I am capable of making that distinction without the aid of religion or a belief in God.

Also, according to the above definitions, while religion is often dependent on a code of ethics, and ethics are a system or code of morals, both ethics and morals are independent of religion.

Cliff

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

All I can say is... Webster is way off!

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

Cliff : I haven't read the books you refered to, but if you can be more specific-- I'll try to find them. I find the Old Testament great for history-purposes and ground-work laying for the New Testament but it is the New Testament that I believe literally. My reasons for my positive beliefs-- is that,when I was growing-up, my extremely intelligent father was an athiest--and argued his p.o.v. with any and all who accidently, or otherwise, challenged his beliefs. This same man, for reasons too lengthy to go into here, did a total turn-around when he was in his mid-forties--- and became a preacher! He applied the same 'thirst-for-knowledge' drive on studying the Bible that he had formally used to disprove anything that had to do with 'God'. He even went back to the original Greek and Hebrew texts so as not to 'miss' anything. As a result, I have had a lifetime of 'both points of view'.... and I based my choices on a lot of information, both pro and con. I know what I know, and have no doubts. I whole-heartedly agreed with him when he decided to eschew conventional religion too. The 'church' he had was people, not doctrine and walls. I still hold to the belief that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing', and , like my father once did, most athiests enthusiasticly rattle off any piece of literature that sounds supportive of their philosophies.......and, yes, I know some preachers do that too. That is one of the reasons why I decided that if God was a super-natural Being, then He was capable of supernaturally, or otherwise, proving to me that He was real. And He did.

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

P.S. to Cliff : What can you possibly say to someone who doesn't accept something as fundamental as the Webster dictionary (much less the Bible)? I can't think of a thing to 'jump-in' with. Oh, about cloning, what's the big deal? Man can,t 'create' anything from scratch . They're still only using what God already put there. To me, it goes along with the 'grafting of plants'..................cathy.

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

Tom Anderson: We can, however, and rightly should make ethical decisions when it comes to applying science in the form of technology.

I agree with you. But we can control only ourselves. What of the other entities who steal or buy this technology from individuals within our society?

Tom Anderson - 09:46pm Oct 3, 1997 ET (#463 of 476) Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel Yap: we should really at least try to figure out what repercussions there might be so we could try to fix it before the irritant is introduced.

Tom Anderson: Of course we should, but that should not stop the progress in the least.

Timing is important. If we reach a level where we can introduce the technology way before we've figured out the repurcussions, then it might be too late. Again, we can stop any development at that point, but what of entities outside our domain?

Tom Anderson: It is like saying "we should not develop a cure for AIDS since a group of people think it would be infringing on god's power to kill immoral people"!

I think we more or less know the consequences of introducing an AIDS cure. The same cannot be said of cloning.

Tom Anderson: Cloning is an incredibly wonderful advance and should not be halted on the grounds of myth.

On the grounds of myth, no. On the grounds of unknown dangers, slowed down at the very least.

Tom Anderson: The best way to define ethics is how everyone would have to act in order to have a civil anarchy.

Hey, I like this.

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

Tom Anderson: As such, cloning is not an ethical issue, but a moral one. Living in a secular society (by law), nobody has the right to stop me or anyone else from pursuing this knowledge.

Would you say the same of nuclear research? Who cares if I have or know how to make a nuclear bomb so long as I don't use it?

Cliff Beall: My conclusion is that religion does not define morality.

Religion may not force morality, but it most certainly defines it. For example, the Pope and his minions, representing Catholicism, have deemed certain acts to be right and others to be wrong. Whether you follow the Church or not makes you moral/immoral in their eyes.

Cliff Beall: I do not think I ever actually believed there was anything specifically wrong with baseball, movies or sex. It was just that I had been led to believe--by misguided, but sincere people, and their "talk the talk" which I took literally--

Cliff Beall: that after being born again, I would no longer be interested in things of the flesh, and would instead be interested in spiritual things.

You don't get to be like this through a ritual; it comes from within. It's kind of like saying you're educated 'cos you went through graduation ceremonies.

Cliff Beall: I think it was more that he thought God thought it was wrong, but that as long as he went to confession, God would let him get by with it.

Yes, this is the loving God of today.

Tom Anderson: Ethics are basically what laws are based on... at least in this country, whatever allows society to function while impeding on

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

Tom Anderson: All I can say is... Webster is way off!

Whether you like it or not, these are the definitions used when communicating in English. If we all decided we didn't like some of the definitions, we wouldn't be able to communicate. For example, I looked up the definition of "spirituality". It didn't fit my usage, so now I'm looking for another word that fits what I want to communicate; I didn't go rewriting definitions.

cathy davis - 02:18am Oct 6, 1997 ET (#476 of 476)

P.S. to Cliff : What can you possibly say to someone who doesn't accept something as fundamental as the Webster dictionary (much less the Bible)? I can't think of a thing to 'jump-in' with.

cathy davis: Man can,t 'create' anything from scratch .

Yet.

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

Tom Anderson: All I can say is... Webster is way off!

Tom, you amaze me with your class. That answer was class, pure class.

Cathy Davis: Cliff : I haven't read the books you referred to, but if you can be more specific-- I'll try to find them. I find the Old Testament great for history-purposes and ground-work laying for the New Testament but it is the New Testament that I believe literally.

First, understand, Cathy, that I have no desire to convert you to agnosticism. It probably wouldn't fit you very well. As an agnostic, one is saddled with a belief system consisting principally of: "I don't know," and I am very well aware that it is not for everybody. I suspect that few people would be comfortable with it. Nevertheless, it fits me just fine. And I will tell you, like I once told one of my sisters: "If you find comfort in your religion, I want you to be comforted. Just understand that I am quite comfortable with my belief system."

However, having said that, I don't want to leave the impression that my conclusions about the non-existence of Hell and the Devil are unfounded, or that they are from unauthoritative sources. So I will tell you that my research materials, for the most part, consisted of a good encyclopedia and a good Bible commentary. The one I used is a one volume commentary about 2 1/2 inches thick and can be found in the religious section of most book stores. And I will tell you that the key to discovering the origin of the Devil concept is a study of Zoroastrianism, often referred to as Persian dualism (based on the teachings of the great Persian prophet, Zoroaster), and its effect on post-exilic apocalyptic Judaism.

Cathy Davis: P.S. to Cliff : What can you possibly say to someone who doesn't accept something as fundamental as the Webster dictionary (much less the Bible)?

See above. I admired the answer.

Cliff

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

Noel Yap: Religion may not force morality, but it most certainly defines it. For example, the Pope and his minions, representing Catholicism, have deemed certain acts to be right and others to be wrong. Whether you follow the Church or not makes you moral/immoral in their eyes.

Okay, when you put it that way, I see your point. Can you see my point when I put it another way?

Tom Anderson: All I can say is... Webster is way off!

Noel Yap: Whether you like it or not, these are the definitions used when communicating in English. If we all decided we didn't like some of the definitions, we wouldn't be able to communicate.

Noel, I don't think the lecture was necessary. I think Tom knew already.

Cliff

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

cathy davis - 11:17pm Oct 6, 1997 ET (#482 of 490)

Noel : Yet?

The world won't last that long.

Cliff : Can't find comfort in a religion, don't believe in it. Just God. Thanks for the reading recommendations, I will read them. My personal opinion here.........you guys are all pure class.

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

Cathy, I am an agnostic. I like being an agnostic. There is no need for me to be anything other than an agnostic. I anticipate that I will be an agnostic until the day I die.

If you are interested, I suggest you start with the encyclopedia. Look up each of the books of the Bible. I think you will find it enlightening, but I do not expect you to lose your faith. The scholars you will be reading are, themselves, Christians. Some will be Catholic and some will be Baptist, but the funny thing is you will not be able to tell them apart by reading what they write. On that level of scholarship, the message is the same. Interesting huh?

Cliff

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cathy,

I still hold to the belief that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'

That is why I became agnostic in the first place. Religion was founded in the midst of ignorance and has held back progress ever since. With 'just a little more knowledge', I was able to see the inconsistancies in the fantasy, so now I am an atheist. It's too bad that most people settle with just 'a little knowledge'.

if God was a super-natural Being...

Supernatural is impossible.

proving to me that He was real. And He did.

No, you did it to yourself.

What can you possibly say to someone who doesn't accept something as fundamental as the Webster dictionary (much less the Bible)? Both are just the opinions of people.

I disagree with them. Rebut if you find something wrong with anything I post.

Man can,t 'create' anything from scratch .

Take a look around you and reconsider that statement.

Noel,

I agree with you. But we can control only ourselves. What of the other entities who steal or buy this technology from individuals within our society?

We can't worry about what others will do. We must worry about ourselves. If you were to suppose that an enemy might in some way discover a way to use this technology against us, then you would have to first take into account that they could develop it on their own. But, that is assuming there were some possible way to misuse this technology. You can't suggest we think of every possible way a decision will impact the future. Isaac Newton couldn't possibly have imagined computers or atom bombs, but both owe something to him. I won't propose going blindly into anything, but paranoia is not prudent either.

<cont...>

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

I think we more or less know the consequences of introducing an AIDS cure.

Do we? I think you ought to think about it a little more. Apply the same arguments you have against cloning.

On the grounds of myth, no. On the grounds of unknown dangers, slowed down at the very least.

Do you steer clear of the subway for the same fear? The myth is more limiting than the actual danger.

Tom Anderson: The best way to define ethics is how everyone would have to act in order to have a civil anarchy.

Hey, I like this.

And Webster can quote me on it ;o)

Tom Anderson: As such, cloning is not an ethical issue, but a moral one. Living in a secular society (by law), nobody has the right to stop me or anyone else from pursuing this knowledge.

Would you say the same of nuclear research? Who cares if I have or know how to make a nuclear bomb so long as I don't use it?

Absolutely! In fact, that is international policy.

<cont...>

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

Tom Anderson - 01:04am Oct 7, 1997 ET (#486 of 490)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

Whether you like it or not, these are the definitions used when communicating in English. If we all decided we didn't like some of the definitions, we wouldn't be able to communicate. For example, I looked up the definition of "spirituality". It didn't fit my usage, so now I'm looking for another word that fits what I want to communicate; I didn't go rewriting definitions.

I think not. The problem with Webster is that they include every possible meaning anyone may ever give the word, whether that be the accepted definition or not. What this leads to is ambiguity in definitions that lead to these silly arguments we have here. What I am arguing is the definition which fits the language as it has been used in all English literature since Shakespeare. I'm not going to find a new word for something because someone turned it into slang for something else or just plain confused it with something seperate but similar. It is not I who am rewriting definitions, but the dictionary which people accept as some type of authority.

Cliff,

That answer was class, pure class.

I can't decide if this is laced with sarcasm.

You sound sincere, but I can't help but think that my response was a bit immature or at least incomplete. Anyway, my elucidation is above.

And I will tell you that the key to discovering the origin of the Devil concept is a study of Zoroastrianism, often referred to as Persian dualism (based on the teachings of the great Persian prophet, Zoroaster), and its effect on post-exilic apocalyptic Judaism.

I am interested if you don't mind discussing this through email.

Cathy,

Yet? The world won't last that long.

Where's it going? And what makes you think so?

Can't find comfort in a religion, don't believe in it. Just God.

Well, that would be the source of discomfort.

Tom

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

Cliff Beall: That answer was class, pure class.

Tom Anderson: I can't decide if this is laced with sarcasm. You sound sincere, but I can't help but think that my response was a bit immature or at least incomplete. Anyway, my elucidation is above.

It was sincere, but a misinterpretation of your intent in view of your subsequent elucidation. I thought you had given me the point, and had had enough class to show. In any case, it was not immature, although it appears now that it was incomplete. I think you should rethink your elucidation. You are wrong.

Cliff

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

Cliff Beall: [Agnosticism] probably wouldn\222t fit [Cathy Davis] very well.

Yes, beliefs are a personal matter. Perhaps we should start offerring Theological Engineer degrees ;)

Cliff Beall: I once told one of my sisters: "If you find comfort in your religion, I want you to be comforted. Just understand that I am quite comfortable with my belief system."

Yes, my father and I have come to such terms.

Cliff Beall: Okay, when you put it that way, I see your point. Can you see my point when I put it another way?

Yes. I was looking at morality from a group's POV, you were looking at it from the individual's POV.

Tom Anderson: If you were to suppose that an enemy might in some way discover a way to use this technology against us, then you would have to first take into account that they could develop it on their own.

Right, if we did the research for them, that's 90% of the work.

Tom Anderson: You can't suggest we think of every possible way a decision will impact the future.

I am suggesting that we try, just as some American Indian tribes did.

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

Tom Anderson: I won't propose going blindly into anything, but paranoia is not prudent either.

A hiatus is not paranioa.

Tom Anderson - 01:04am Oct 7, 1997 ET (#485 of 487) Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

I think we more or less know the consequences of introducing an AIDS cure.

Tom Anderson: Do we? I think you ought to think about it a little more. Apply the same arguments you have against cloning.

I don't have anything against cloning. We should just know what we're getting into before we do (ie legal consequences, ethical consequences, economic consequences, ...)

Tom Anderson: Do you steer clear of the subway for the same fear? The myth is more limiting than the actual danger.

I know the dangers of the subway. The task force was set up to ponder the possible dangers of cloning (to society.)

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

Tom Anderson: As such, cloning is not an ethical issue, but a moral one. Living in a secular society (by law), nobody has the right to stop me or anyone else from pursuing this knowledge.

Noel Yap: Would you say the same of nuclear research? Who cares if I have or know how to make a nuclear bomb so long as I don't use it?

Tom Anderson: Absolutely! In fact, that is international policy.

I don't think so. It doesn't even have to be nukes. Just look at the David Karesh incident. Or, more globally, Korea and some Mideast countries.

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

I agree with you, Tom. You can't go around making criminals of people who merely have something that could be dangerous. I include all conventional firearms in this: semi-auto pistols, AK-47s, ozis, etc. Guns dont kill people, people do. However, military weapons of mass destruction that would be coveted and fought-for by terrorist organizations should be under lock and key. If you make a nuke, I don't really care as long as it is your secret, but once it's presence is made public, it is a matter of national security for the FBI to seize it...with just compensation, of course. Cloning of humans is interesting because we must ask ourselves: is a human born in captivity for research purposes deserving of the freedom we enjoy? It's hard for me to say no. Then we must ask ourselves: do we have the right to infringe on those freedoms by making the subject our pet project (like the nuke)? In my view, this is the moral aspect of human cloning.

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

"Advanced Cell Technology Inc., said they would combine genetic engineering and cloning to create a herd of cattle genetically identical to one another, and carrying human genes."

My feeling is that this is pure evil.

Sincerely, Stephen Weaver

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

re: Post #484 Tom, I agree with you about religion. But God is NOT the same as 'religion'. And NO, I did NOT do 'it' to myself ! Since you weren't there, you'll have to take my word for it. No supernatural ? Do you really think we are all there is ? What a small and boring world that would be............. However, it's all just your opinions. I disagree with them. re: Post #486 Downhill------fast. Because mankind is pushing it there. Absolutely, positively NO discomfort at all, doc ! But thanks for the concern. Cliff: I looked just about everywhere else, but I've never thought to read about those subjects in the good 'ol encyclopedias. Thanks . With phrases like "talk the talk' going around, I'm beginning to recognize a little condescension in the air, so I think I will leave you guys to it from now on. But it's been fun.

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

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of it continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities. Theodore Roosevelt

A couple of observations here:

1: You can't uninvent something. A good deal of the challenge of any enterprise is not knowing if it can be done. Look at the atomic bomb; by 1950, everyone was working on them.

2: Technology can be used for good or evil, but it isn't inherently evil in and of itself. Unless you're an animist, objects are not inherently good or evil; they just are.

So, where does that leave us? Well, since you cannot wish cloning away, you have to deal with it. Imagine one possibility of advanced genetic engineering: A specially bred cow, for example, which could nuture human organs in its system. Diabetes? No problem. Find someone who would be a compatible pancreatic transplant, take a few of the pancreas's cells, and culture them in a clone of said cow. When the pancreas is grown, remove it, transplanting it to the diabetic patient.

If you have religious objections to cloning, fine--don't participate. Don't get blood transfusions, either, for all I care. But don't try to deny others the benefits of modern technology.

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

Cathy, in view of your, perhaps, valid, objection, I am going to try to defend my use of the "talk the talk" phrase. I work in an engineering department, and we have special meaning for certain words and we have "catch phrases," the meaning of which only we understand. We call it jargon. To communicate effectively (talk shop) within something like an engineering department, one must know the jargon.

However, technical groups are not the only ones who have a dialect of their own. All groups, technical and non-technical, quickly develop words and phrases that have a special meaning within their own group, that everyone in that group understands and appreciates, but which may confuse people outside the group. Furthermore, sub-groups within the group may have their own special dialect. This is fine until a member of such a group tries to communicate with an outsider using those terms and phrases. The outsider may think he or she understands, but the special meaning is missed, and confusion is the result.

I could have used the word jargon to denote church words and catch phrases, but I disliked the use of such a hard word in that context. And lingo seems even less appropriate. Therefore, I adopted a phrase from the Smothers Brothers. As they put it, to be a folk singer, you have to "talk the talk" and "walk the walk." (It means essentially the same thing as jargon and seems more appropriate for non-technical " talk the talk.")

I did not mean to offend.

Cliff

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

John, you are absolutely right.

Cliff

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

I think you should rethink your elucidation. You are wrong.

How so? Do you really agree that Webster should include every misuse of a word in their definition of it, even when people such as yourself use it as an authority? Yes, it is true that our language is in a constant state of flux, and that meanings of words change with time, but a definition should be in considerable use before blurring the distinction between two words. The reason we have words is so that we can differentiate one idea from another; that is impossible when anything said can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. Ethics and morality are not one in the same, nor is religion anything other than the worship of a deity. Using "religious" to describe something that is "like worshipping" is an analogy, not a definition. To say that a scientist religiously observes his experiment is one thing, but saying that science is a religion is something entirely different. Unfortunately, we cannot trust the authors and editors of a dictionary to make that distinction.

Noel,

I am suggesting that we try (to think of every possible way a decision will impact the future), just as some American Indian tribes did.

That is rediculous. Notice how we of European descent, we who are prudent but not restrictive, have overrun the American Indians because they could not compete? Notice how we are sitting on computer terminals, connected and communicating only by wires, which could not even have been imagined a few decades ago let alone achieved if our fathers and grandfathers had decided to think of every possible impact. You cannot predict everything... they could not have predicted the benefits we have now, or any problems that could have been. We must look to the immediate future to avert any immediate threats, but then cross each successive bridge as we come to them. Cloning can solve a plethora of medical problems and possibly be a defining step in th

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

A hiatus is not paranioa.

Yes it is.

If we find the AIDS cure, it would have the same impact as having found the syphilis cure. So would cloning. In fact, it is possible to cure AIDS through cloning or at least find an AIDS cure through the benefit cloning will have to the research procedure.

I don't have anything against cloning. We should just know what we're getting into before we do (ie legal consequences, ethical consequences, economic consequences, ...)

There are no legal, ethical, or economic problems... only religious problems.

I know the dangers of the subway.

You know the myth of the danger, but not the actual danger. You fear things that don't exist.

I don't think so. It doesn't even have to be nukes. Just look at the David Karesh incident. Or, more globally, Korea and some Mideast countries.

First, you can find nuclear weapon plans on the internet, or in a physics text book. The idea is very simple, and impossible to restrict. It is almost common knowledge to anyone with a highschool diploma. That doesn't mean everyone is going to try to nuke the world. We can trust most of the population to use information such as this responsibly; but for those we can't, we must try to eliminate the threat through other means such as restricting plutonium, economic boycotts, etc. Even so, don't believe the Bible... man is not inherently evil, man is inherently selfish, and he likes his civilization so he wants to keep it. What about the Karesh (is that spelled right?) incident? What about Korea and the Mideast? What about them?

You say you want to ensure freedom of information on the child porn message board, but then you suggest keeping this information from people, and cloning is much more beneficial than naked pictures of children!

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Brian,

Guns dont kill people, people do. it is a matter of national security for the FBI to seize [a nuclear weapon]

That is contradictory. Nukes don't kill people either, people do.

Cloning of humans is interesting because we must ask ourselves: is a human born in captivity for research purposes deserving of the freedom we enjoy?

That is not in question. A person is a person, no matter what form of reproduction was used to begin its life.

Then we must ask ourselves: do we have the right to infringe on those freedoms by making the subject our pet project?

No, that is not in question either. A person is a person. You watch too much Sci-Fi.

Stephen,

My feeling is that [raising cattle who can help people] is pure evil.

How so? Do you like that people suffer and die? My feeling is that people who try to stop medical progress are pure evil.

Cathy,

But God is NOT the same as 'religion'.

Pretty much. Religion is the worship of a god and all that it entails.

And NO, I did NOT do 'it' to myself !

Like it or not, you convinced yourself of God's existance. There were no miracles involved. You chose to believe... faith alone. No external force, except the preaching of those in your religion.