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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

No supernatural? Do you really think we are all there is?

I know so. The supernatural, by definition, is not a part of nature -- it is something which is defined as not being provable by nature. Therefore, it does not affect nature. The supernatural would be natural if it did, and then science could study it. Since it does not affect nature, it is entirely of human experience; and human experience occurs entirely in the mind (or else it would again be non-supernatural).  Since the supernatural occurs entirely in the mind, it is human in origin, invented by the mind. Therefore, the supernatural does not exist and cannot be studied by physicists, only by psychologists.

What a small and boring world that would be.............

Accept it, that's where we live. You can have your grand fantasies of gods and spirits and heaven and hell, but it is all fiction. I live in the real world.

However, it's all just your opinions.

No, it is the truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

Downhill------fast. Because mankind is pushing it there.

How so? We live better than anyone ever before. Our progress is astounding. Just what exactly do you consider to be going downhill?

Absolutely, positively NO discomfort at all, doc!

You advised people who are uncomfortable with religion not to believe in religion, but to still believe in God; but God is the source of discomfort in the religion.

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

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

John,

You can't uninvent something.

Right, so let's stop debating whether to continue research, but how to continue.

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.

Absolutely! Call me an optimist, but I have "faith" in humans to not try to destroy us all at every opportunity. I won't say that there aren't Caesars and Napoleans and Hitlers out there, but people generally aren't out to kill each other. Besides, this particular technology couldn't possibly be used to do so anyway. Cloning is a potential way to make people, not kill them.

Don't get blood transfusions, either, for all I care.

Right; if you have religious objections, take a lesson from the Amish. Otherwise, go the way of the Indians.

Cliff,

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.

So you understand why Webster shouldn't print every little meaning a word may have for someone? Chaos!

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

Tom,

Cliff Beall: I think you should rethink your elucidation. You are wrong.

Tom Anderson: How so?

Because it is wrong. Perhaps the most grievous error in your "elucidation" is the accusation that the scholars who wrote the definitions indulged in Slang and confused one word with another in their definition for general usage. Another significant error is the charge that Webster includes "every possible meaning anyone may ever give the word, whether that be the accepted definition or not." Finally, the most ridicules of all your charges is that Webster is responsible for "ambiguity in definitions that lead to these silly arguments we have here." It isn't Webster that is at fault, it is you with your "talk the talk."

Tom Anderson: 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?

They don't. That is why I accept them as an authority.

Tom Anderson: 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...Ethics and morality are not one in the same...

I gather from this that you think the scholars at Webster have capriciously changed the meaning of words on purpose to confuse everybody. I happen to have an old dictionary, vintage 1928, and I decided to look up those two words to see how they had changed in the last 69 years. According to this old dictionary, the meaning of those two words are:

ethics: the science that treats of the principles of human morality and duty; moral philosophy; morals

moral: pertaining to morality or morals; conformed to the right; subject to, or influenced by, the moral law; virtuous; practically sufficient; moral philosophy or ethics

It doesn't sound to me like Webster has changed the meaning of these two words in the last 69 years.

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

Tom Anderson: nor is religion anything other than the worship of a deity.

This is a perfect example of talk the talk (group jargon): a special meaning attached to a word, understood perfectly within the group, but very confusing to people outside the group. (To make sure, I looked up the word, religion, in the 1928 dictionary, and, guess what? I found it conformed quite well to the modern definition.)

Tom Anderson: 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.

Basically, I agree with this. However, I will note that science can be made into a religion. Anything can be made into a religion. To some people, science is a religion.

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

Those are my sentiments exactly. This surprised me because I previously understood that you thought differently.

Cathy Davis: But God is NOT the same as 'religion'.

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

Guess who I agree with?

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

Tom Anderson: 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.

Tom, I have to say I agree with you here. But I don't think it hurts anyone for Cathy to believe as she does. (At the same time, I do not believe it hurts anyone for you to believe as you do.)

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

Cathy Davis: No supernatural? Do you really think we are all there is?

Tom Anderson: I know so [no supernatural].

Cathy Davis: However, it's all just your opinions.

Tom Anderson: No, it is the truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

You two can not possibly both be right. The interesting thing is that you both "know" you are right. My best guess is that there is no God. My natural curiosity being what it is, I would like to know. The lack of evidence being as it is, I don't know.

Cliff Beall: 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.

Tom Anderson: So you understand why Webster shouldn't print every little meaning a word may have for someone? Chaos!

First, Webster does not print "every little meaning a word may have for someone." They certainly didn't print the meanings that you apparently prefer:

morals: what "God" says is wrong; religious tradition

ethics: how everyone would have to act in order to have a civil anarchy; what laws are based on.

The problem is that when you use these words as having those meanings, people outside your group are confused. That is why we need to stick with general usage definitions on a public messageboard such as this.

Cliff

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

Cliff Beall: But I don\222t think it hurts anyone for Cathy to believe as she does. (At the same time, I do not believe it hurts anyone for you to believe as you do.)

I believe I agree with Cliff.

Cliff Beall: My best guess is that there is no God. My natural curiosity being what it is, I would like to know. The lack of evidence being as it is, I don\222t know.

This is my sentiment, too.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:11pm Oct 10, 1997 ET (#515 of 515)

Noel,

I believe I agree with Cliff.

This is my sentiment, too.

Noel, thanks for the above notes of agreement. It has occurred to me that I seldom mention an agreement in my posts, and as a result, I usually don't have much to say about your posts. However, those two notes expressing agreement really made me feel good. I have, therefore, decided to try harder to make note of things I agree with, as well as those with which I do not, in the future.

Cliff

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

Noel Yap - 07:11am Oct 13, 1997 ET (#516 of 518)

Cliff Beall: t has occurred to me that I seldom mention an agreement in my posts,

Yeah, I do the same.

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

Kirk Minov - 10:31pm Oct 16, 1997 ET (#517 of 518)

Why does everbody thinks that coloniong is bad, it's just another breack through in science, like radio, computers. Did radio or computers made anithing bad to human society. Coloning should be funded, I belive, because it opens a great possibilities for humans. And it wouldn't affect lifes of people who doesn't want deal with it because of religion or other belifes.

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

Noel Yap - 07:03am Oct 17, 1997 ET (#518 of 518)

I don't think cloning is bad, per se. I do feel that it's a big enough technology that we should at least try to forecast it's impact upon society so that we can better decide the path we take and how fast we go down it

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

Cliff Beall - 11:56am Oct 19, 1997 ET (#519 of 519)

Kirk Minov: Why does everbody thinks that coloniong is bad, it's just another breack through in science, like radio, computers.

Until recently, I saw no advantage to cloning, and I did see a huge potential for mischief. The mere duplication of individual sheep (or humans), while interesting, is not beneficial to the species since it would, in my opinion, tend to narrow the gene pool, not improve it. (I have previously argued this point on this messageboard. See #445 for the last example.) Based on that assessment, I was strictly opposed to cloning.

However, John Lopez (#494), made an argument that was persuasive to me on two counts: first, that there was no stopping the technology, and, second, there were possible benefits. After reading that post, I felt I had no choice but to change my position. As a result, I am no longer "strictly" opposed to cloning. Nevertheless, I still see the potential for mischief, and I think we had best be very careful.

Noel Yap: I don't think cloning is bad, per se. I do feel that it's a big enough technology that we should at least try to forecast it's impact upon society so that we can better decide the path we take and how fast we go down it.

I agree totally.

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

Kirk Minov - 02:39pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#520 of 586)

Cliff Beall,

The thing we are talking about here is the funds cutted by Clinton. I'mnot saiing how great that technoogy is, all I'm saiing is that we just have to halp it to be created. We always can deside whether or not we want ot use is, if we have it, but if we don't have it we have no potions.

What's about nerrowing the gene pool, I don't think it does it. We don't loose genes even if we dont get any new combinations. And from other points of view humans had million other ways to decrease gene pool and coloning is not gonna be any big deal.

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

Cliff Beall - 05:45pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#521 of 586)

Why does anything that anybody thinks is worthwhile have to involve additional taxes?

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

Cliff Beall - 06:15pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#522 of 586)

I have changed my mind again. I am again "strictly" opposed to cloning research. I fail to see a concrete benefit, and I see great potential for mischief. (And I sure don't want to pay for it.)

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

Brian Mickley - 09:34pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#523 of 586)

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I think think think think think think think think cloning cloning cloning cloning cloning cloning will will will will will will will will will will develop develop develop develop develop develop whether whether whether whether whether whether anyone anyone anyone anyone anyone anyone anyone likes likes likes likes likes likes likes likes it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or not not not not not not not not not not not not ........................................period.

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

Tom Anderson - 09:42pm Oct 19, 1997 ET (#524 of 586)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff, no benefit? You sure dug shallow. What is the concern; what mischief?

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

Bill Donnachie - 12:56am Oct 20, 1997 ET (#525 of 586)

I think cloning is a great idea whos time has come.

Just think, soon we will be able to get on the Web and surf for "body parts".

Later, Infomercals on TV, Home shoping club. etc.

I can't help but think that many people will be helped by all the new body-parts that will be on the market.

Truly we are entering a New Age.

Best Regards, A. Clone

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

Joe Williams - 01:03am Oct 20, 1997 ET (#526 of 586)

After speaking with Joe Williams 2 and Joe Williams 3, we are of the same mind, so to speak, on the matter. Joe 2 is split on the idea of creating a headless, spineless Joe 4 for organ replacement. Joe 3 is resentful that he was the most recent clone to be created and thus the new kid on the block (he got the smallest bedroom) and wonders if it is possible to retroactively apply the headless treatment to Joe 2.

But when all is said and done, we are quite pleased with the 2 on-5 off workweeks, the ability to send just one of us to spend 8 long hours at the gun range last Saturday qualifying for our concealed carry license (unfortunately, I drew the short straw on that one), and as for our long-suffering fiancee, well, this is a family board, but let us just say we have removed the 'long-suffering'.

Many pleasant regards, Joe Joe 2 Joe 3

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

Peter Pann - 01:40am Oct 20, 1997 ET (#527 of 586)

Clinton's Proposal was not to Ban Human Cloning -- Only a 5 Year Domestic Cloning Ban -- In Effect A Waiting Period

I wish CNN would get its facts straight. Clinton's panel proposed a 5 Year Ban only on domestic cloning experiments. In effect, the proposal would allow U.S. companies, the CIA, foreign companies operating in the U.S., or anyone operating under U.S. jurisdiction to clone humans off shore.

I have objected to this saying it will most likely result in DNA specific cloning only for the rich and powerful. My concern originally was that human cloning would be taking place in countries like Indonesia and China, where human rights are merely problematic. However, brain function [heads] can be removed!

Today it was announced in the U.K. that Headless Human Cloning will be taing place. Again, sounds like DNA specific human cloning will take the lead. Headless clones -- I think religious organizations will be upset on moral and ethical grounds.

I object on the grounds that only The Rich will be able to clone a duplicate for replacement parts. The rest of us can just wait for body parts from accident vistims or Chinese prisoners.

MY PREDICTION: U.S. and International Insurance Companies will invest Heavily in cloning operations. And at the same time deny claims for replacement parts on the basis of "Experimental Technology."

Only the Rich will Get The Benefit! Or maybe U.S. Presidents, and ranking politicians.

Think about it!

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

william wingate - 02:31am Oct 20, 1997 ET (#528 of 586)

Lets see.... what do we have here? The ability to grow whole people, half-people, bags of flesh carrying my choice of organs plus a pumping heart to keep it all alive. I'm all for the bag of guts, but headless people? God help-us. Thats too macabre. I hope it never happens. What if one of those headless torsos accidently grew a head? Do you cut off the head before it gets to experience the pleasures of Seinfeld? Or do you let him grow up without a family as a test subject? Tough questions guys. I posted before that I had no problems with cloning whole people. If someone decides to have a child through cloning and raise them no differently than a normally concieved child where is the harm? Is it objectionable because the child's genetic material is identical to his parents'? It really wouldn't be an identical copy. It would be a different person with his own individual experiences; a younger twin of yourself. No more, no less. Although, I might have a problem if someone decided to make, lets say... 100 of themselves. That would be bad.

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

Mr. Hall - 05:34am Oct 20, 1997 ET (#529 of 586)

Cloning is great. It would keep our memories alive! Just imagine. Carbon copies of the greatest people around the world for future generation. This would help mankind prosper! Clinton is wrong. We should embrace cloning. It is the best thing that ever happen this decade. It is inevitable that cloning will be the wave of the future. You cannot stop it! Parents who have lost children can fill the emptiness in their heart just by cloning their dead children and children of dead parents can fill their emptiness and clone their dead parents. This will lead to happiness for all humans. Cloning will be supported by private funds if the federal dollars don't come in so government need to back of and let cloning be legal or else private corporation will start abusing it.

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

Simeon F. - 07:27am Oct 20, 1997 ET (#530 of 586)

I think that all you guys that agree with this should pick up a, holy bible read Genesis 1:27 and realize that there is only one creator of life.

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

J.A. Campbell - 09:56am Oct 20, 1997 ET (#531 of 586)

If you aren't rich don't worry, you'll only have to pay for it via taxes. If you are rich, who cares if you live a thousnad years - you can't clone the soul. And we know where those are going, rich or poor!

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

Ralf Patterson - 10:49am Oct 20, 1997 ET (#532 of 586)

Professor Andrew Linzey calls a headless torso a "being". I beg to differ. Without a central nervous system, a headless torso is more like a head of lettuce. Millions of people suffering from diseased organs could benefit from this form of cloning. The pundits who complain that only the rich will be able to afford it are wrong; any new technology is initially expensive, as it becomes more commonplace it will become less expensive. And I DO believe that at some point insurance companies would cover the procedure. It would save them a lot of money in the long run. No high costs of continuing anti-rejection therapy for body parts that don't really match the patient, shorter hospital stays, etc. etc. Sure, harvesting body organs from a headless torso sounds gross, but so is harvesting steaks from a cow!

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

AJR - 01:25pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#533 of 586)

NO, NO, NO...As a Republican, this is one issue where I agree with President Clinton! No federal funding for research with human cloning. These scientists are messing with stuff they shouldn't be messing with! Why can't people just leave nature alone, and let God do his job???

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

Shirley Robbins - 02:07pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#534 of 586)

My boyfriend is an insulin-dependant diabetic, who is now experiencing all kinds of complications from the disease, such as blindness and impending kidney failure. His diabetes could be cured with a pancreas transplant, unfortuneately doctors will not do this until he eventually requires a kidney transplant also. Then he will have to take immunosupressive drugs for the rest of his life to keep the organs from being rejected. If these organs could be grown from his cloned cells, there would be no need for drugs to supress his immune system.

--Shirley Robbins

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

Gary Margrave - 02:40pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#535 of 586)

What I really want to know is: How long before can I expect cloned T-bones and rib-eyes to appear in the supermarket?

-Gary Margrave

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

RazorX - 02:43pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#536 of 586)

I believe in the future humans will lose the ability to mate in traditional way. In my life, I have seen males of our world growing sterile more and more, day by day. I am one of this cast. In time, all that you see will be converted to its basic useful form with grand revolutions in science. The little fingers will drop off the hands of humans and death will be cheated by a single cell. Cloning will become a way of life and fear of it will fade into trust. Any one Person or President will not stop it. These days the fire that tempers our species is fear of death. Later, these fears will give way to life without boarders of time and health. Imagine, you decide when it is time to die. You decide what you do with your body, all of them! RazorX

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

John William Freck - 02:53pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#537 of 586)

Is an artificail womb within current bio-engineering? Why not JUST grow the replacement organ?

Why not grow just the meat in giant high-tech fermentation vats the size of a huge warehouse?

Is it possible to create a high-quality protein cell that would satisfy a vegetarian and provide 100% essential protien support?

I am suspicious of vegetarians. Do vetetarians support protein defecincy? Do vetetarians argee with with modern RDAs for essential protein consumption? Are vetetarians aware of poor cultures keeping protien sources for males only?

There is alot to food issues!

What about food? Can we make maltodextrin from crude oil?

I think that it is OK to clone tissues and organs. Headless one though seem scary!

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

Kelly Rentzel - 03:09pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#538 of 586)

Who do you think is receiving donor organs now? The people who are wealthy enough to afford them. It's simple economics: the more supplied, the less the cost. Organs will become available to more people, not to fewer. It is easy to dismiss this idea as disgusting and manipulative without thinking about it, but I guarantee any of you that if you, like I, had witnessed a much younger sister faced with kidney failure at the age of 10, you would start to change your mind about this grand experiment. Don't let blind religiosity stand in your way. Do you think God would have given us these gifts of learning and knowledge if he hadn't wanted us to use them? This is not creating life: it is SUSTAINING it! I'm a Christian, but I will not disavow the modern world because of it.

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

kgb - 03:15pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#539 of 586)

You can really tell who has a need for cloning and who doesn't by their comments. You people who don't have a need, don't have someone who you love needing a transplant, don't have a reason to just let "god" do his job, should to imagine if you, or someone you love lost an organ, or had a disease that affected an organ. How quickly would turn on your precious god and embrace science. As well, people who embrace cloning as a way of keeping around "great" people, soon we will have only "great" people. (kind of like having only super-humans) Making you and I obsolete.

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

Rene LaPointe - 03:24pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#540 of 586)

Clones: a boon to mankind? Right. So the basic assumption here is that anything that lets people live longer is a good thing. Therefore, resistance to this "bag of organs" cloning technology is a bad thing. And everybody is going, "Awww... We can cure all disease and people will live forever..."

Let's face it, folks. No matter how hard we try, we won't live forever. The trick is to increase the value of the life we are given, not the length. Quality of life does not come from an absence of pain, but from a learned ability to deal with pain.

We need to draw the line on how far we are willing to tread down the path of moral destruction. There is evil in this world, and it is often disguised as something desirable. Let's stop this horrible course of experimentation before we learn the hard way...

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

Noel Yap - 03:24pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#541 of 586)

Kirk Minov: The thing we are talking about here is the funds cutted by Clinton. I'mnot saiing how great that technoogy is, all I'm saiing is that we just have to halp it to be created. We always can deside whether or not we want ot use is, if we have it, but if we don't have it we have no potions.

In a world of limited resources, we must decide which research takes precedence.

Kirk Minov: We don't loose genes even if we dont get any new combinations.

Combinations of genes are more important than the genes themselves -- it is what allows adaptation and evolution to occur.

Peter Pann: I have objected to this saying it will most likely result in DNA specific cloning only for the rich and powerful.

Nothing wrong with this in a capitalist society.

Mr. Hall: Parents who have lost children can fill the emptiness in their heart just by cloning their dead children and children of dead parents can fill their emptiness and clone their dead parents.

This is BS. You might as well tell parents who have lost one of the twins, "Well, at least you have a spare."

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

Noel Yap - 03:25pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#542 of 586)

Simeon F. I think that all you guys that agree with this should pick up a, holy bible read Genesis 1:27 and realize that there is only one creator of life.

I thought, "Man was created in God's image?"

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

Kelly Rentzel - 03:42pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#543 of 586)

Rene--

When your baby's dying, I hope you are satisfied with the value of its life.

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

cathy davis - 04:08pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#544 of 586)

I almost never agree with Clinton on anything, but on this issue-- for once , whatever his motives are , I'm glad to see that he isn't going to spend more of our (collective) tax-dollars on something that just isn't a priority with me. It's not that I don't approve of cloning--- I still think its not any worse than plant-grafting (why aren't people having a fit about creating 'new' breeds of plants, after all God didn't originally make them either ?) however, Telethons are held constantly for money-raising purposes for extremely important research and developement in many worthwhile causes . At least telethons let only those that are interested foot the bill (and doesn't force it out of those who aren't .) BTW, as some on this board can tell you, I'm definately a Christian but I just can't see GOD having a problem with this .

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

Kirk Minov - 04:28pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#545 of 586)

Noel Yap,

The first thing is that I don't think that resourses are scares that much(I can be wrong). Another thing is that I really don't think that cutting resourses by Clinton was thing to get some more money for other science research, I belive that the cutting of resourses was just respond to screaming of christians, and other religios people who are against coloning. Anyway we all will be able to choose whether or not we want to use coloning or not.

What's about gene pool. You know I would really doubt that any serious evolutionary proseses are taking place in human sosiety. I mean even if they are there they are not significant.

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

Rene LaPointe - 04:29pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#546 of 586)

Kelly --

My children are doing fine, and I pray they will remain so despite your seeming prediction that my baby will some day be dying. (The subjunctive would have been more appropriate: "If your baby were dying...") I empathize with your sister's tragic circumstances. I can only hope that your family did not abandon faith through such a terrible time.

You stated earlier: "Do you think God would have given us these gifts of learning and knowledge if he (sic) hadn't wanted us to use them?" Do you think God allows pain and suffering to exist in this world solely as a puzzle for our scientific community to solve? Is that the purpose of pain and suffering?

Kelly, I am quite aware that many people would benefit from organ cloning. But what about the "worst-case scenario?" Think about it, and it is very easy to conjure up some very ugly results of cloning research. These, too, will come to pass if research continues, despite government regulation.

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

Noel Yap - 04:49pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#547 of 586)

Kirk Minov: What's about gene pool. You know I would really doubt that any serious evolutionary proseses are taking place in human sosiety. I mean even if they are there they are not significant.

It depends upon your frame of reference. Changes due to evolution can't be seen from just a few generations, but the overall aggregation of changes usually benefits the species and the ecology in general.

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

Barrett Clark - 05:20pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#548 of 586)

I have studied bioethics & ethics as a whole in some detail. The more I think about this the more I think this is utilitarianism in its finest moment. We are saying for the moment that it is possibly that a human life form might be created such that other humans could benefit when needing an organ. One life form would be disected organ by organ so that several other humans could benefit. Doesn't that make you just a little sick?

To respond to someone else's post that those who don't have a need for these are agaisnt it until they do have a need. I think that is wrong, of course. I am watching a grandfather die slowly; my second. Yes, it is hard.

Comments? [email protected]

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

Ralf Patterson - 05:42pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#549 of 586)

Sorry to bust your bubble Rene, but in the future (not in our lifetimes) the only way a human will die will be by choice, foul play, or accident. Disease and aging will be a thing of the past. Genetic science is already close to finding out what causes aging, and there are hints that aging itself may be reversible.

Quality of life does not come in fixed quantities. The universe is infinite as is the human spirit, and I am sure that quite a few people could find ways to keep busy for a few millenium; if not, they should be given the right to make a graceful exit.

As to the "bag of organs"; I'm sure a compassionate mother would gladly pick one out if it saves the life of a child who is dying from a slow painful disease.

Moral destruction? Nothing destroys the human spirit more than force-fed morals. If given the choice of taking a chance on something that may be evil, yet can save countless millions, or taking a questionable moral stand that may be good, yet millions will die; I'll choose the former.

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

Tom Anderson - 10:34pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#550 of 586)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Barrett,

I have studied bioethics & ethics as a whole in some detail. The more I think about this the more I think this is utilitarianism in its finest moment. We are saying for the moment that it is possibly that a human life form might be created such that other humans could benefit when needing an organ. One life form would be disected organ by organ so that several other humans could benefit. Doesn't that make you just a little sick?

This just about sums up the opinion of the opposition. But, there is no "human life" being created or destroyed, it is just growing organs for transplant. When did a liver become a person, when did a kidney become a person, when did a heart become a person? The only organ that can be identified as being a person is the brain, which is specifically being left out. Why wait for a person to die before making an organ available for transplant when we can readily grow our very own? There is nothing sick about it, there is nothing evil about it. Aging and death do not have to be a constant in life, and they will not be in the near future so far as the religious don't cry 'evil'! Oh no, their fun little story about going to heaven will be obsolete, what ever will they do? What, they can't threaten their enemies with hell? That is just tragic. You mean man can solve his own problems without turning to God? What is this world coming to?

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

Rene LaPointe - 11:01pm Oct 20, 1997 ET (#551 of 586)

Ralf: Sorry to bust your bubble Rene, but in the future (not in our lifetimes) the only way a human will die will be by choice, foul play, or accident. Disease and aging will be a thing of the past.

Ralf, it sounds like someone else is living in a bubble. Do you honestly believe this pipe-dream of yours? Yes, we can lengthen the human life, but indefinitely? Come to grips with reality. Study physics, particularly the part about entropy. Or does congress have the power to change that?

Force-fed morals? Cut the crap. I choose to live in a clone-free world, yet I apparently have no choice in the matter. A vocal segment of the population, blinded to the large-scale repercussions of their decisions by the promise of short-term gain, is calling the shots. Who's morals are being impose upon whom? I know which way society will go on this issue, no matter how much I waste my breath. Everybody loves a new technology. "Just think of how much good we can do. Having the ability to lengthen the lives of my children is insufficient reason to start mutating the human being. Do you think it will end at organ cloning? Think again, Ralf. And when you do, think hard. Don't make a knee-jerk decision on this one, because there is no turning back once you redefine what is human. The end does not justify the means.

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

Ralf Patterson - 12:19am Oct 21, 1997 ET (#552 of 586)

Cloning is just ONE of the many ways humanity will find to extend life. And yes, I know all about entropy, but guess what? This vessel we call our body is just that; a vessel. Within it we contain our consciousness. In the future, technology will overcome the limitations of our current "shell" and thus defeat entropy. Cloning is just the next step in our evolution (oh, my! that naughty word!) and a clumsy one at that. Nature used to dictate our evolution; in the future, advancements in computer technology will allow us to decide our own evolution without the "wetware"; an evolution simulator, so to speak, that will enable us to see what avenues to take and which to avoid, unlike the random steps of mother nature. And please don't think it can't happen; even Jules Verne thought TV was a thousand years in the future!

For now, the reality is we are born, we live, and we die - for now...

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

Barrett Clark - 10:29am Oct 21, 1997 ET (#553 of 586)

"When did a liver become a person, when did a kidney become a person, when did a heart become a person? The only organ that can be identified as being a person is the brain, which is specifically being left out."

I'm sorry, I thought I specified a human life form rather than a person. The article I read spoke of a headless life-form from which organs can be harvested. That is 1 step away from a headed life form.

I'm not saying that I am right. And nobody is saying this is even plausible yet. But what if?

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

cathy davis - 11:08am Oct 21, 1997 ET (#554 of 586)

Rene: See if you can concur with me on this . These guys dismiss God , heaven , etc. as obsolete little stories that have no place in the wonderful 'evolutionary' future , yet use terms such as 'consciousness' and 'human-spirit' to state that in the future we will no longer need these shells ( that our body is just a shell to hold a humans true essense, the soul , is something Christians have known all along ) . I find that fascinating , don't you ? BTW Tom, I've seen mans 'ability' to solve his own problems , I'm not impressed---I would much rather trust God , He's never let me down .

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

Noel Yap - 03:05pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#555 of 586)

Ralf Patterson: Genetic science is already close to finding out what causes aging, and there are hints that aging itself may be reversible.

Are you refering to telomeres?

Ralf Patterson: Nothing destroys the human spirit more than force-fed morals.

I agree.

Tom Anderson: Oh no, their fun little story about going to heaven will be obsolete,

I know the heaven story has comforted me through some hard times, but I have little grief over its death.

Rene LaPointe: I choose to live in a clone-free world, yet I apparently have no choice in the matter.

The only real choice you have is whether your clones are created or not.

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

Noel Yap - 03:05pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#556 of 586)

Rene LaPointe: A vocal segment of the population, blinded to the large-scale repercussions of their decisions by the promise of short-term gain, is calling the shots.

I agree. The only thing I don't like about this is that they tend to "leap before they look." By the time we're all in trouble, it may be too late. In any major endeavor, risk analysis must be done by knowledgable people.

Rene LaPointe: Who's morals are being impose upon whom?

Noone's if those who wish to use the technology can in a way that is not detrimental to society.

Rene LaPointe: I know which way society will go on this issue, no matter how much I waste my breath.

Your breath is not wasted. Those who wish to follow, will.

Ralf Patterson: technology will overcome the limitations of our current "shell" and thus defeat entropy.

Life isn't governed by entropy, anyway. Complex systems are an exception to the laws of entropy -- life itself is an example.

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

Noel Yap - 03:06pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#557 of 586)

Ralf Patterson: Cloning is just the next step in our evolution

I don't see this. Cloning doesn't increase variety, it decreases it. Perhaps you refer to genetic engineering? Or maybe, cloning as a tool to create controlled experiments in genetic engineering?

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

John-michael Johnson - 04:51pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#558 of 586)

Anyway, I think that cloning has become so popular because we want to be in too many places at one time. Ha Ha... Having a twin or two that will do what we say (hopefully) will suit our Fancies.

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

Tom Anderson - 05:38pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#559 of 586)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Rene,

Yes, we can lengthen the human life, but indefinitely? Come to grips with reality. Study physics, particularly the part about entropy.

There is nothing that physically limits the potential life of an individual. The reason a person can live eighty years while a squirrel will only live five is because of various hormones, neurotransmitters, and other proteins as defined by the DNA. There are trees that apparently have an indefinite life-span (in the U.S. Midwest, there are entire forests that consist of a single root system aged several thousand years), so why not people too? A cell performs its function, divides, performs its function, divides; where is the physical limitation? Age is most likely caused by our growth hormones, which are necessary to cause the maturation of an infant to an adult, but apparently do not stop. If we could just stimulate our cells to act like they are in a twenty-five year old body by producing the appropriate hormones... In the meantime, we can make up for aging by growing twenty-five year old organs in a body that is producing the correct hormones because it is twenty-five (or younger, with an accelerated growth rate).

I choose to live in a clone-free world, yet I apparently have no choice in the matter.

I choose to live in a Rene-free world, but I can't change that either.

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

Tom Anderson - 05:39pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#560 of 586)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Having the ability to lengthen the lives of my children is insufficient reason to start mutating the human being.

Well, what about artificial blood and engineered skin, multivitamins, surgery, and every other medical practice in existance? Are these not unnatural? The human body is just a conglomeration of elements arranged in such a way as to provide us life... what is wrong with correcting problems with that often unstable structure? And why not build replacement parts?

The end does not justify the means. Please qualify your disagreement with the means.

Barrett,

I thought I specified a human life form rather than a person.

Then I guess you are against any form of transplantation at all. Say you need a new kidney... you cannot have your spouse's extra one transplanted into you because it is a "human life form" all of its own. You must also be against the Red Cross's Blood Drives too then. Aren't you even a bit ashamed of "using" your own "human life forms" to sustain yourself? That lung should be free! Let it go! And, wait, don't eat that piece of corn, it is a "life form"! No, not the cow! Stop, you're killing all of these life forms! What a world, what a world!

cathy,

Consciousness is not the result of a "soul", it is the result of a properly functioning brain.

I've seen mans 'ability' to solve his own problems , I'm not impressed

Oh, I suppose you don't like the roof over your head, the hot water running from your faucet, the light produced by your light-bulbs, the computer you are reading this from, et cetera, et cetera? You prefer praying for rain so that your crops will grow instead of irrigating them? You prefer praying that your children live instead of innoculating them?

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

Tom Anderson - 05:40pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#561 of 586)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

He's never let me down.

Only because you only attribute the good things to him and not the bad. He has never done anything for you, and you'ld be better off if you recognized that.

Noel,

Life isn't governed by entropy, anyway. Complex systems are an exception to the laws of entropy -- life itself is an example.

Whoa, Noel, that's quite a misstatement! Life certainly is not an exception to entropy. Do you think that every last calorie available in a hamburger is transferred without loss to the adenosine triphosphate in your cells, or that the process of muscle contraction or blood flow does not lose energy to heat? Why do you think you get hot and sweaty during exercise (losing both heat and water)? Please rethink what you have said. Every brick that is lifted to the wall of a house releases not only the energy that the brick gains in potential but much more for the process by which it got there. When you walk up a flight of stairs, you expend lots of energy, but do you gain it on the way back down? Every action increases the universal entropy while reducing the enthalpy of the system which performs the action.

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

Tom Anderson - 05:41pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#562 of 586)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cloning doesn't increase variety, it decreases it.

Another misstatement; what's the matter today, Noel? When a species is not separated by natural borders, it tends toward convergent evolution in which the total number of genes decreases due to the interbreeding of the entire genome. When a species is separated, it tends toward divergent evolution in which the total number of genes increases because the two populations do not interbreed. Humanity is a single global population whose genome is converging, thus decreasing variety. When separated into Asian, African, European, American, etc. seperate populations is when we developed the differences you see today in different races; but these differences are converging to a single genome in which the most dominant of these are expressed proportionally. Cloning would only serve to maintain the variety we have today, not increase or decrease it.

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

Rick Jay - 07:37pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#563 of 586)

Has anyone herd about some scientist cloning fetuses without heads to use for origin transplant? I herds something about this on the radio, but couldn't find it in any of the local papers.

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

cathy davis - 08:47pm Oct 21, 1997 ET (#564 of 586)

Actually Tom , one of my children did almost die, and when all of the best doctors gave up and told me there was nothing they could do for him , God saved his life ,thru prayer! Even the doctors called it a miracle . As for the rest , I believe it's God that gives us the ideas to 'invent' something to make our lives better------and mankind usually gets greedy or selfish and messes it up ! Sorry I can't acknowledge something thats just not true....,believe me there will be a time when YOU realize it is true.

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

Mr. Hall - 04:13am Oct 22, 1997 ET (#565 of 586)

I hope cloning advances faster so all the people on the organ donor list don't need to suffer anymore! Way to go, scientists! You guys really made a real contribution to society! Who cares what all these ethicists... You got my and the majority of the organ transplants patients on your side! You ethicists are mean, don't you know that people are dying because you are too stubborn and nosy. Leave the great scientists alone and let them do their job and if you don't like, learn to love it because it is inevitable! Do you know you ethicists kill more organ transplant patients than helping them? If you really want to apologize to these unfortunate individuals please donate money to help their worthy cause to amend for your evil deeds that you just did by delaying life saving medical breakthroughs.

Shame on all you who is against cloning. Don't you know you are killing people by your actions? Remember the bible, "Thou shall not kill." So do yourself a favor and support cloning and write letters to Clinton asking him to revoke the ban on cloning.

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

Lee Fairbanks - 09:14pm Oct 22, 1997 ET (#566 of 586)

I'm new to this particular board. So please bear with me if I asked something that has aleady been addessed.

I've just finished reading the news about the "Headless frog". It conjured up something from a Steven King novel. Fortunatley I was spared an Artist rendering. If I understand the article correctly then any organ that would be grown would have a heart attached to it?? What happens to the heart after the organ is removed? Can the heart be used for someone awaitng a transplant ??

Personally I would like to see cloning available and support the continued research. But I have a dilema. We already ignore the world wide popluation expansion. What if cloning was availabe to everyone to promote longevity then how do we deal with dwindling natrual resources??

As far as the rich only being the benefactors of this technology. Probably at first this would be true. But at one time only plastic surgery was available to the rich. Now its affordable to just about any middle class worker.

Presently society pays for all medical bills incurred by prisoners. What if someone is on death row awaitng execution and is appealing and suddenly becomes ill and the only way to keep this person alive is by some organ. What then?? Do we replace the organ then put them to death once the appeals process is over??

For myself I embrace the cloning concept. Maybe for selfish reasons. I'm not afraid of death. My spritual household is in order. But I would like to live a lot longer though. To be a part of all the advances being made in computers and space travel etc. Its all so fasinating. If the cloing industry is really going to advance in the upcoming years, then I guess I better start on trying to figure out how to afford it.

Just a little analogy. If you have a car that has a few years, but otherwise in perfect condition, and the only thing you need is a new battery. Do you trash the car or get a new battery?? I get a battery.

Another thought

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

Lee Fairbanks - 09:15pm Oct 22, 1997 ET (#567 of 586)

Another thought. Organs keep getting mentioned. By what about limbs?? Would be able to restore arms legs spinal cords, sight? If any of the above is applicable then why would anyone object ??

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

Tom Anderson - 12:59am Oct 23, 1997 ET (#568 of 586)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Lee,

If I understand the article correctly then any organ that would be grown would have a heart attached to it??

Unless it is grown in some sort of oxygen/vitamin/mineral/fatty-acid/amino-acid/etc. bath, that would obviously be necessary.

What happens to the heart after the organ is removed? Can the heart be used for someone awaitng a transplant ??

Sure, why not?

We already ignore the world wide popluation expansion. What if cloning was availabe to everyone to promote longevity then how do we deal with dwindling natrual resources??

There is no dwindling resource problem; there is more than enough land, water, air, minerals, etc. for many more people to live comfortably. These third world countries have tons of resources at their fingertips that they are simply not utilizing due to technological ineptness. Even if there were such a population problem, it could be so simple as to legally restrict the number of children a couple can have, like in China. Better still, this would be a perfect excuse to colonize the Moon and Mars, and maybe keep going.

As far as the rich only being the benefactors of this technology. Probably at first this would be true. But at one time only plastic surgery was available to the rich. Now its affordable to just about any middle class worker.

I'm sure the demand would be such that new corporations would be founded which exclusively offer this service... and relatively cheaply at that. The American Red Cross would probably be the first to implement this.

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

Tom Anderson - 01:00am Oct 23, 1997 ET (#569 of 586)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Presently society pays for all medical bills incurred by prisoners. What if someone is on death row awaitng execution and is appealing and suddenly becomes ill and the only way to keep this person alive is by some organ. What then?? Do we replace the organ then put them to death once the appeals process is over??

Yes, if there is a chance that the person is being sentenced unjustfully, the law must protect that person's life. Would you not want the same should you be in that position?

But I would like to live a lot longer though. To be a part of all the advances being made in computers and space travel etc. Its all so fasinating.

Absolutely! There is lots to live for; why just give up life?

Just a little analogy. If you have a car that has a few years, but otherwise in perfect condition, and the only thing you need is a new battery. Do you trash the car or get a new battery?? I get a battery.

Good analogy.

Organs keep getting mentioned. By what about limbs?? Would be able to restore arms legs spinal cords, sight? If any of the above is applicable then why would anyone object ??

Limbs are organs too. An organ is any group of tissue which works together to perform a function. A finger is as much an organ as the heart or liver. That also includes the skin, hair, eyes, nerves, possibly even bones, tongues (for those badly burned or something), cochlea (ears, for those headbangers who stand too close to the speakers), et cetera.

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

Lee Fairbanks - 01:16am Oct 23, 1997 ET (#570 of 586)

RE: Tom Anderson

Thanks for your response. Your right about limbs being organs too. Usually when I think of the words 'Organ Transplant', its the heart,kidney etc. Thus far I haven't heard of someone having a limb IE: Arm, leg etc. being replaced from a donor. Then again I haven't read or heard everything yet.

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

Keith Fosberg - 12:15pm Oct 23, 1997 ET (#571 of 586)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

Trivia, I know... but....

If the clone has no head you won't have much luck with eyes and ears!

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

Barrett Clark - 03:44pm Oct 23, 1997 ET (#572 of 586)

Tom,

Whatever. You missed the point & your opinion isn't so important to me that I want to type it in all over again. If you want to carry on, then read my initial post & email me.

I eat red meat, I believe in transplants from willing people, and I have given blood. I think there is at least a small difference between this and "making" human organ banks through cloning.

What happens when someone decides that maybe we can make a full human? What happens when some sick bastard learns how to do this and manipulates it? Surely you aren't naieve enough to think that only the "good" people will want to create human life forms. I think some things are better left alone & playing around with human genes is one of my lines not to be crossed.

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

M.A.DeLuca - 06:53pm Oct 23, 1997 ET (#573 of 586)

But Mr. Clark, are you then suggesting that all the good to be gained from cloning technology is to be dismissed because of the actions of an occasional extremist?

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

Lee Fairbanks - 09:57pm Oct 23, 1997 ET (#574 of 586)

Ok....Here I go out on a Academic limb in a area which I have very little information about.

Two years ago a friend of mine was studying at UCSD. He was/is studying for a degree in Bio-Physics Pre-Med.

He was studying in conjunction with the Scripps research center. He had mentioned that a Billionaire from Texas had donated Mega millions of dollar in the area of aging. A part of this research had included a most exhasuted study of Telemere's. (TM for short)And are found in the chromosone.TM's somehow are directly related to aging. As we aged supposedly they experience atrophy. Supossedly these TM's can be measure and almost accuarately predict death do to aging. It wasn't clear to me whether or not aging caused the atrophy or the TM's caused the aging process thus shrinking in the process. Again I'm not clear. My friend offered enough information to wet my appetite but not my hunger. It is also suspected, but not proven that biological interference with TM's could reverse the aging process. Or could be specificlly targeted to areas for rejuvenation. If any of the above is true, then othen then certain body parts the entire body clock could be turned back with-out the Science of cloning.

Now having rambled about that..... It was mentioned that organs could be grown. If someone is 40 years of age, and a new organ is grown, how do we get the heart to a "AGE" compatable viability to the receipient?? Would it be the use of TM's technology?? Or are we at the point that Science knows how to begin the cloing process but doesn't know how to make it compatable to the age variance??

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

Carl Nicolai - 05:23am Oct 24, 1997 ET (#575 of 586)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

I'm not sure it is a good idea to mention this but if if the grown tissue is not a human being than it is ownable just like any other animal meat.

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

Noel Yap - 03:14pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#576 of 586)

Noel Yap: Life isn't governed by entropy, anyway. Complex systems are an exception to the laws of entropy -- life itself is an example.

Tom Anderson: Whoa, Noel, that's quite a misstatement! Life certainly is not an exception to entropy. Do you think that every last calorie available in a hamburger is transferred without loss to the adenosine triphosphate in your cells, or that the process of muscle contraction or blood flow does not lose energy to heat?

Although these processes are part of (and necessary to) life, they do not comprise all of life -- the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Life itself is emergent behaviour coming from the interaction of all these (and some other) processes. When a system (such as life and the ecology) reach a certain complexity (some critical mass you might say), it starts working against entropy -- order starts coming out. When talking about life, we have labeled this process "evolution", but it's not just limited to life. Ideas, technology, and society also fall into this category -- new things are coming out all the time; they are not stagnating as entropy would dictate.

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

Noel Yap - 03:15pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#577 of 586)

Tom Anderson: Every action increases the universal entropy while reducing the enthalpy of the system which performs the action.

Yes, but the actions you have mentioned are not complex enough to increase order. I guess you could say that my statement above doesn't include an outside energy source. If I were to include this -- the sun in this example -- then, yes, you are correct, entropy does increase. But, I stand by my statement that complex systems decrease entropy locally. But what is locally? If you abide by the Big Bang Theory, the early universe should have been uniformly dense -- complete entropy. We now have systems of bodies, this itself has decreased entropy.

Tom Anderson: When a species is not separated by natural borders, it tends toward convergent evolution in which the total number of genes decreases due to the interbreeding of the entire genome. When a species is separated, it tends toward divergent evolution in which the total number of genes increases because the two populations do not interbreed.

Your examples are too simplistic. Have you simulated evolution, yet? If you do, try (randomly) separating populations and then reintroducing them.

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

Noel Yap - 03:16pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#578 of 586)

Tom Anderson: seperate populations is when we developed the differences you see today in different races; but these differences are converging to a single genome in which the most dominant of these are expressed proportionally.

It sounds like you're saying that traits can diluted. That, because of interbreeding, we'll all eventually wind up with the same skin tone, height, weight, eye color, intelligence, ...

Tom Anderson: Cloning would only serve to maintain the variety we have today, not increase or decrease it.

I guess it would have to depend upon how it's done.

cathy davis: when all of the best doctors gave up and told me there was nothing they could do for him , God saved his life ,thru prayer! Even the doctors called it a miracle .

I believe something else can be at work here -- something that medicine cannot, yet, or ever will, explain. IOW, it may or may not be God (depending upon your definition.)

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

Noel Yap - 03:17pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#579 of 586)

cathy davis: As for the rest , I believe it's God that gives us the ideas to 'invent' something to make our lives better

Yes, the muses.

cathy davis: there will be a time when YOU realize it is true.

Don't count on it. At a certain point, only a miracle can change a person's beliefs drastically; this goes for God-believing and atheistic people alike.

Mr. Hall: I hope cloning advances faster so all the people on the organ donor list don't need to suffer anymore!

I hope it proceeds at a pace society can handle. We've lived without cloning all this time, we can live without it a while longer. What I mean is: when delivering a new/improved product to clients, you want to weigh out the benefits versus the risks of failure. IOW, you don't want your solution to cause more problems than it's worth.

Mr. Hall: Do you know you ethicists kill more organ transplant patients than helping them?

Death is a part of life we no longer want to accept -- this is fine. But, what if this technology can cost more lives than it saves? I'm not saying that it can or will, just that it needs some investigation. The five years that Clinton gave can, and should, be used in this manner. In fact, it is only government funding that Clinton stopped. Nothing prevents you from donating to this cause.

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

Noel Yap - 03:17pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#580 of 586)

Lee Fairbanks: What if cloning was availabe to everyone to promote longevity then how do we deal with dwindling natrual resources??

It's the same in any market with limited resources. Only those that can afford it will be able to get it. Of course, if cloning itself were cheap, then (without controls) even the ones that can't afford resources will increase their population. We have this problem now. Current cloning technologies won't affect it 'cos fetuses will still need ~280 days to mature. It'll only be another way of reproducing.

The population problem is a social one. We need to work on social solutions before introducing technology that can aggravate them. IOW, the Western world balances technology and society better than third world countries, so, the third world countries should not use technologies that would make their situations worse.

Lee Fairbanks: Presently society pays for all medical bills incurred by prisoners.

Prisoners and crime are also societal problems.

Lee Fairbanks: To be a part of all the advances being made in computers and space travel etc. Its all so fasinating.

I agree.

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

Noel Yap - 03:18pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#581 of 586)

Tom Anderson: These third world countries have tons of resources at their fingertips that they are simply not utilizing due to technological ineptness.

This is not true. These countries don't have the resources to get at the resources. They are lagging behind technologically mostly 'cos we've had a head start. Most of our major social problems occurred centuries ago.

Tom Anderson: Even if there were such a population problem, it could be so simple as to legally restrict the number of children a couple can have, like in China.

What about personal freedom? Are you saying that it's OK to sacrifice freedom?

Better still, this would be a perfect excuse to colonize the Moon and Mars, and maybe keep going.

This can't be done by the third world countries. I say, let them catch up at their own pace. They must be the ones to solve their own problems. All we can do is help by giving advice and leading by example.

Tom Anderson: Yes, if there is a chance that the person is being sentenced unjustfully, the law must protect that person's life. Would you not want the same should you be in that position?

There is a line we must draw. No system will ever have zero false positives (barring reading minds and time travel.) At some point, we must say that there are acceptable losses.

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

Noel Yap - 03:19pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#582 of 586)

Tom Anderson: An organ is any group of tissue which works together to perform a function.

This is not the definition I remember from bio.

Lee Fairbanks: It is also suspected, but not proven that biological interference with TM's could reverse the aging process.

This will have to be proven through experiment.

Carl Nicolai: I'm not sure it is a good idea to mention this but if if the grown tissue is not a human being than it is ownable just like any other animal meat.

I see no objective reason to ban owning human meat.

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

Kirk Minov - 04:25pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#583 of 586)

Can someone explain me why Cristians are apposed to coloning. From the point of view of Cristian it's nothing bad, cause we already doing sort of same stuff. I mean here that we DO rase animals (cows, pigs) to kill it. So why cant we rase another animal who looks kinda like us and then kill it to get his organs out - to save the life of other HUMAN.

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

Guttman Rotem - 04:31pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#584 of 586)

Cloning MUST be researched without any restrictions by the government. Any country that develops a new technology must persue it to the fullest extent, or another country will. History has shown us that any new technology or theory can be used as a weapon in one way or another, if we do not research cloning and advance our knowlege and experience we will fall behind technologically and the economy will surely follow.

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

Kirk Minov - 04:33pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#585 of 586)

Cathy Davis:I believe it's God that gives us the ideas to 'invent' something

Oh, REALLY ???, I thought scientists (people) invent things. So, cutting funding of coloning Clinton became some sort of Anti-God thing ???

Cathy Davis:believe me there will be a time when YOU realize it is true.

you think ...

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

Kirk Minov - 04:37pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#586 of 586)

Guttman Rotem,

I really would dout that coloning it that big of the invention, but have to agree that it should be developed as fast as possible.

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

cathy davis - 10:45pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#587 of 596)

Kirk : Look again , I said the ideas to invent something , not the 'hands-on' application ...............Noel , as usual , you're thoughtful and fair in your responses , if not totally in understanding of my particular views . When trying (many moons ago) to decide what I believed , I approched it like buying insurance. -You know...... 'maybe its not true-but what if it is , I'd better buy the policy just-in-case'. Since then I've come to know what I believe (the Bible) and have no doubts about the 'truth' of it.......wish it was possible for you to get in my head for awhile , then you'd know too. Thanks for the thought though.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:42pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#588 of 596)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Keith,

If the clone has no head you won't have much luck with eyes and ears!

It would be possible to grow specific organs through embryonic induction; that is, by introducing specific cells or chemicals to growing, undifferentiated cells, they will develop as if they were a part of that organ.

Barrett,

I understood your point, and found it wasn't a point at all.

I believe in transplants from willing people

Without a brain, it is just a collection of organs, not a person.

I think there is at least a small difference between this and "making" human organ banks through cloning.

Why? Every person on earth "makes" cells, tissues, and organs. When our own "factory" isn't quite up to spec, what is wrong with using some imports?

What happens when someone decides that maybe we can make a full human?

We make thousands of people every day; I believe it is called conception, gestation, and birth.

What happens when some sick bastard learns how to do this and manipulates it?

Manipulation? What manipulation? How is a manipulation of cloning any different than a manipulation of sexual reproduction?

Surely you aren't naieve enough to think that only the "good" people will want to create human life forms.

What does the competency of the parent have to do with reproduction? It has never stopped people before!

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

Tom Anderson - 11:43pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#589 of 596)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Lee,

If someone is 40 years of age, and a new organ is grown, how do we get the heart to a "AGE" compatable viability to the receipient??

A forty-year-old can do quite well with a twenty-year-old heart. And it needn't even be twenty-years-old, only large and strong enough; so with the right growth hormones, I'm sure we could produce a mature organ within just a few years or even less.

Carl,

I'm not sure it is a good idea to mention this but if if the grown tissue is not a human being than it is ownable just like any other animal meat.

Yes. If there is no person attached to the tissue, then it is property in the economic sense of whoever took the time and money to grow it. That is not true when it is a full person though (brain included).

Noel,

Life itself is emergent behaviour coming from the interaction of all these (and some other) processes.

No, it actually is a sum of the parts.

When a system (such as life and the ecology) reach a certain complexity (some critical mass you might say), it starts working against entropy

Where are you getting this stuff from? "Metaphysics for Dummies"?

they are not stagnating as entropy would dictate

Entropy does not dictate anything, it is a universal constant. Stagnation and entropy are far from interchangeable terms. Just because a process occurs which appears to go against entropy, it does not mean that it actually does. A city certainly does not appear to be "spreading out" or "stagnating" or "randomizing" or "chaotizing" or anything else entropic sounding, but it most certainly is. Think about each individual process and you will see it more clearly.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:44pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#590 of 596)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Yes, but the actions you have mentioned are not complex enough to increase order.

Relative to what? Nothing increases order; not without reducing it even more so elsewhere.

We now have systems of bodies, this itself has decreased entropy.

We don't know anything about the initial conditions of the universe, if any exist. I think that the key to this is gravity; it is seemingly anti-entropic, but also the focus of entropy. It seems that gravity is able to maintain a universe tending toward entropy for an infinite amount of time. Something of a series of explosions and implosions.

If you do, try (randomly) separating populations and then reintroducing them.

That is essentially the story of human races today.

That, because of interbreeding, we'll all eventually wind up with the same skin tone, height, weight, eye color, intelligence, ...

That's how it works. There are occasional mutations and such, but not enough to counteract convergence due to sexual reproduction.

I guess it would have to depend upon how [the cloning is] done.

How so?

At a certain point, only a miracle can change a person's beliefs drastically; this goes for God-believing and atheistic people alike.

I don't know why you continue to believe this; most atheists' beliefs are based on reliable knowledge and change according to evidence and logic. Speaking for myself, this is certainly true.

Death is a part of life we no longer want to accept -- this is fine.

No longer? When did people want to die?

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

Tom Anderson - 11:45pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#591 of 596)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

In fact, it is only government funding that Clinton stopped. Nothing prevents you from donating to this cause. My taxes are my donation... that is not government money, it is citizens' money. What about personal freedom? Are you saying that it's OK to sacrifice freedom?

I don't think it is any more of an infringement on freedom to tell someone they cannot have ten kids than it is to say you cannot have ten beers and drive home. Is it a sacrifice? In a small degree, yes, but we make many minor sacrifices when living with people, like not killing each other and stuff like that. To say, "you can only have one child, I hope it is the sex you like better," then that is going too far, but limiting your family to say, five, is not too much to ask for. Anyway, I did have other suggestions.

[Colonizing the Moon and Mars] can't be done by the third world countries.

Who's talking about third world countries? I'm talking about the United States. Third world countries don't have the medical expertise, technology, or facilities to even cure common ailments... what would they need cloning for? It is a perfect next step for us; let them deal with their more immediate problems.

At some point, we must say that there are acceptable losses.

Perhaps, but that is not how our law is currently written. If we are going to give these people the right to appeal, then they cannot be treated as less than human. What if their appeal is found to be justified, but too late, they already died! Either give them rights to life, or deny it, but don't go inbetween the two... that is just cruel.

This is not the definition I remember from bio.

I suppose you are going to look it up on WWWebster? Go ahead, I will defend my definition. And it isn't even my definition, those are almost the exact words I can still hear my highschool AP Biology teacher saying.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:49pm Oct 24, 1997 ET (#592 of 596)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Kirk,

From the point of view of Cristian it's nothing bad, cause we already doing sort of same stuff. I mean here that we DO rase animals (cows, pigs) to kill it. So why cant we rase another animal who looks kinda like us and then kill it to get his organs out - to save the life of other HUMAN.

And that's not the worst of it... Christians also symbolically eat their savior! How can a cannibal possibly complain about a perfectly ethical medical practice?

cathy,

When trying (many moons ago) to decide what I believed , I approched it like buying insurance. -You know...... 'maybe its not true-but what if it is , I'd better buy the policy just-in-case'.

That is the most rediculous thing I ever heard... do you buy stampede insurance, locust insurance, monster-from-the-blue-lagoon insurance? Not even just in case? I could sell you some! You should only believe what is true, not what would be nice to be true.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:10am Oct 25, 1997 ET (#593 of 596)

Tom Anderson: Cliff, no benefit? You sure dug shallow. What is the concern; what mischief?

I guess it depends on what is considered a benefit, and what is considered mischief. It appears from other of your posts that what I consider mischief, you consider a benefit.

Joe Williams: But when all is said and done, we are quite pleased with the 2 on-5 off workweeks, the ability to send just one of us to spend 8 long hours at the gun range last Saturday qualifying for our concealed carry license (unfortunately, I drew the short straw on that one), and as for our long-suffering fiancee, well, this is a family board, but let us just say we have removed the 'long-suffering'.

It is hard to argue with this.

Peter Pann: Today it was announced in the U.K. that Headless Human Cloning will be taing place. Again, sounds like DNA specific human cloning will take the lead. Headless clones -- I think religious organizations will be upset on moral and ethical grounds.

One does not have to be religious to be upset by this on moral and ethical grounds.

William Wingate: Lets see.... what do we have here? The ability to grow whole people, half-people, bags of flesh carrying my choice of organs plus a pumping heart to keep it all alive. I'm all for the bag of guts, but headless people? God help-us. Thats too macabre. I hope it never happens.

This is only wishful thinking, William. Nevertheless, I agree.

J.A. Campbell: If you aren't rich don't worry, you'll only have to pay for it via taxes.

You got that right, J.A.

AJR: NO, NO, NO...As a Republican, this is one issue where I agree with President Clinton! No federal funding for research with human cloning. These scientists are messing with stuff they shouldn't be messing with! Why can't people just leave nature alone, and let God do his job???

I agree with the "just leave nature alone" part, AJR. If God exists, I am not so sure he has done all that good a job. (He seems to make an inordinate amount of mistakes.)

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

Cliff Beall - 12:14am Oct 25, 1997 ET (#594 of 596)

John William Freck: I am suspicious of vegetarians. Do vetetarians support protein defecincy? Do vetetarians argee with with modern RDAs for essential protein consumption? Are vetetarians aware of poor cultures keeping protien sources for males only?

You have a point.

John William Freck: What about food? Can we make maltodextrin from crude oil?

Maybe if we could get congress to fund a study on this, we would find out.

Noel Yap: In a world of limited resources, we must decide which research takes precedence.

Right. Now if only we could get congress interested in maltodixtrin from crude oil...and spend some more taxpayer money...

Mr. Hall: Parents who have lost children can fill the emptiness in their heart just by cloning their dead children and children of dead parents can fill their emptiness and clone their dead parents.

Noel Yap: This is BS. You might as well tell parents who have lost one of the twins, "Well, at least you have a spare."

You have that right, Noel.

Cathy Davis: I almost never agree with Clinton on anything, but on this issue-- for once , whatever his motives are , I'm glad to see that he isn't going to spend more of our (collective) tax-dollars on something that just isn't a priority with me.

My sentiments exactly.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:21am Oct 25, 1997 ET (#595 of 596)

Kirk Minov: Another thing is that I really don't think that cutting resourses by Clinton was thing to get some more money for other science research, I belive that the cutting of resourses was just respond to screaming of christians, and other religios people who are against coloning.

It is also the screaming of taxpayers about excessive taxes for yet another dubious undertaking. Never mind the moral and ethical considerations, I, for one, am tired of having my pocket picked in this manner.

Ralf Patterson: Moral destruction? Nothing destroys the human spirit more than force-fed morals.

Except, perhaps, excessive taxation.

Tom Anderson: This just about sums up the opinion of the opposition ...Oh no, their fun little story about going to heaven will be obsolete, what ever will they do?

Tom, if you believe that, I have this bridge... Religious people will cling to these beliefs regardless of the strength of yours or my arguments against them, and the ability of man to clone humans and other animals will not change that. I don't think it hurts much, however.

Ralf Patterson: Cloning is just the next step in our evolution

Noel Yap: I don't see this. Cloning doesn't increase variety, it decreases it. Perhaps you refer to genetic engineering? Or maybe, cloning as a tool to create controlled experiments in genetic engineering?

I agree with part of this, Noel. Genetic engineering has great potential. But I don't think cloning to create controlled experiments in genetic engineering is more ethical than the forced use of twins for the same purpose.

Rene LaPointe: I choose to live in a clone-free world, yet I apparently have no choice in the matter.

Tom Anderson: I choose to live in a Rene-free world, but I can't change that either.

Interesting exchange.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:23am Oct 25, 1997 ET (#596 of 596)

Cathy Davis: He's never let me down.

Tom Anderson: Only because you only attribute the good things to him and not the bad. He has never done anything for you, and you'ld be better off if you recognized that.

Precisely what way would she be better off, Tom?

Barrett Clark: I eat red meat, I believe in transplants from willing people, and I have given blood. I think there is at least a small difference between this and "making" human organ banks through cloning.

I agree.

Tom Anderson: An organ is any group of tissue which works together to perform a function.

Noel Yap: This is not the definition I remember from bio.

In this case, Noel, Tom's definition sounded pretty good to me. What is the definition you remember from bio?

Carl Nicolai: I'm not sure it is a good idea to mention this but if if the grown tissue is not a human being than it is ownable just like any other animal meat.

Noel Yap: I see no objective reason to ban owning human meat.

I think it is scary.

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

Carl Nicolai - 02:00am Oct 25, 1997 ET (#598 of 602)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Here in Asia you can buy human placenta as a traditional chinese medicine.

Now if we can own human meat then we logicly can get it certified by the USDA. In fact you can buy human milk that is certified. It is used for babies that are alergic to cow milk.

So for a thought experiment, just what do you think would happen if someone bought this human milk and made cheese from it and then offered it for sale.

I dont think there is any available protection to keep such a producer from being torn limb from limb in some communities.

If you think so then put an ad in a newspaper and see what happens.

People are NOT rational about many things and cloning is a whole lot closer to them then a simple milk based product.

30 years ago science fiction talked about the clone wars which were to take place in the early to mid 1990s. It now looks like maybe the 2020s before the division between countries that allow human cloning and those that ban it have a major conflict.

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

cathy davis - 02:32am Oct 25, 1997 ET (#599 of 602)

Tom :( sigh) I said "when I was trying to decide" , very early on ( in my teens !) .......now it seems a little ridiculous to me too , but then it was sufficient . Now , I rely on many years of personal experience and knowledge gained by being around for awhile.......and that is what I base my beliefs on now . Cliff : you're a 'good-knight', thanks.......but I sure wish you could know what I 'know' . ................cathy