Sachie Sakurai - 04:45pm Sep 17, 1998 ET (#86 of 98)

Mostly, it's our ability to presume that we do.

Cliff Beall - 05:07pm Sep 17, 1998 ET (#87 of 98)

Most definitely! I actually consider "self-improvement" a continuing, life process, rather than some discrete (beginning and end) project -- and it might provide you some more commendable way to spend your time. Incidentally, the "tly" for "tally" seems to be one of my 'favorite' slips (but I 'nailed it' that time!) -- and, I would never claim it as a conscious rejection of orthography.

P.S. Fun to see how rapaciously you 'snatched up' that little "(shame on me)" 'freebie' I threw to the floor. (Never a surprise; ... so much effort for so little effect.)

Ralph Davis Lynch - 02:38am Sep 18, 1998 ET (#91 of 98)

Loquacity is certainly no rarity on this board -- but 'Good Luck!' on finding something more than rank opinion.

melody chen - 06:36am Sep 18, 1998 ET (#92 of 99)

First I've heard of such! Have you any provenance other than your own apparently inventive bias? And (reflectively) don't I recall similar unsupported postings under the 'Melody Chen' moniker?

Excellent point. I had not thought of it that way, but you are right. I learned something today.

Right again, Bob.

Actually, I am not about to do that. It was fun to suggest it in the context of a joke, but actually doing such a thing would leave me open for the ridicule I would so richly deserve when I subsequently committed similar oversights. Let's make a deal, you ignore my warts and I will ignore yours.

Well, it was red meat (and oh such a tender morsel)! Cheers.

Imortality? Not hardly! your clone will not carry any of your memories, knowledge or personality. It will have your genetic makeup but each person soul is his own. Or as the author of the book of Hebrews puts it, "it is appointed for man to die once and then face judgement". You still only have one life, use it well.

Yeah, Good luck, alright. But seriously, Bob, I thought the links in my messages to Ralph and Melody provided somewhat more than just rank opinion. You agree?

And again, I am sorry the link to the "Nature" articles did not work, but that seemed to be a function of the "longitudinal extent" of the edit box in conjunction with the character sequence of the address I attempted to post. (I used the words "longitudinal extent" in the last sentence instead of a particular word starting with "wid" and ending with "th" that means the same thing since CNN will not allow the use of that word.) Could someone else attempt to post a similar link to a similar "Nature" address and tell me if you have a similar problem? Just curious.

Ok, Ok, so I am definitely not up on the latest genetics news. I was wrong and you were right.

But I still think we are a LONG way from cloning adult humans.

For all you animal rights people out there, I am just curious - Do you feel the same way about ALL animals or just vertebrates? What if someone were to decide to start cloning lots of jellyfish or squid for food? What about octopus? They are considered one of the most intelligent inverts (people have demonstrated observational learning for them) which is more than I can say for my pet fish (which are vertebrates). Why is it that I never see anybody picketing outside a marine invertebrate or insect lab (not that I'm complaining)?

I don't think human cloning is something we should be messing around with. - Krista Landon

Famous last words: I don't think nuclear fission is something we should be messing around with.

Many nations might not think that a clone has as many rights as a natually conceived human being.

Many nations do not think that certain members of their cast should have as many rights as their standard citizens have.

You can't clone an organ, per se.

I do think fighting genetic diseases is a good thing to do, but we just don't know enough to start making 'improvements'.

We do know. In-vitro fertilization can eliminate many genetic disorders. No cloning needed.

What if someone were to decide to start cloning lots of jellyfish or squid for food? What about octopus? - melody chen

Have no problem with this. Am eating lots of sautéed and marinated squid and octopus. Low in fat; good protein source.

I am not sure. My hunch is that if we depend on the Duke of Seed, hell may freeze over before it happens. On the other hand, if the folks in Scotland, Hawaii, Massachusetts or Wisconsin were to take a notion, it might happen sooner than you think. The problem is that those folks are into animal cloning, which has a vast potential for monetary reward. Compared to that vast potential for monetary reward, there is not much money in human cloning.

I love squid. Squid is very tasty. Wonder if cloning by nuclear transfer would seriously increase the squid population? That would be nice.

Good question. I think there are several forces working here.

In the first place the fear of transgenic viral contamination issue is a very real concern. BSE (mad cow disease) devastated the British meat industry and there have been many discussions about the possibility of pig to man xenoplants introducing viruses into humans that can easily mutate into dangerous diseases. The standard flu infects humanity in ever new strains.

Oh well. Someone is working hard on the problems. They will be solved.

Carl, I can readily understand the concern for transgenic viral contamination with respect to the transplantation of a vital organ from (say) a pig to a human. If the organ transplanted contains a virus, it may spread to other organs of the host, mutate etc. and spread to other human organisms, or whatever. Significant testing will be required to make sure that does not happen.

But if a human gene is added to an animal genome and is targeted in such a way that the female animal produces a human protein in her milk which can subsequently be separated from the milk and administered to people who are deficient in that protein, I fail to see the danger to humans.

The animal, itself, would be at danger from prevalent diseases, however. I am just guessing, but assuming the report is correct, I would guess that PPL has concern that if they produced their flock of sheep in the UK, this very expensive flock could be devastated by diseases existing in the UK, representing a significant loss of investment. Therefore, they have undertaken to minimize the risk to their investment by moving the herd to New Zealand where disease is less common.

If this is the case, the decision to move their investment to New Zealand has nothing specific to do with the technology since there was never a concern for transgenic danger to humans, but it was merely a business decision to avoid a possible loss of a significant investment. Does that make sense?

o We were a LONG way from cloning mammals, 'til 'Dolly' popped out.

o We were a LONG way from understanding the circulation of the blood 'til Wm Harvey did an 'end run' on the Inquisition.

o We were a LONG way from a 747 when Wilbur and Orville starting playing with their 'kites'.

I guess society has some atavistic need for a 'peanut gallery' to 'pooh-pooh' every serious enterprise that flies in the face of 'conventional wisdom' and/or 'revealed truth'.

re: #114
These guys seem not to agree. - bob faulkner

A tissue is not an organ!

And a first step is not per se the finished product. (See Wilbur and Orville, above).

And a first step is not per se the finished product. (See Wilbur and Orville, above). - bob faulkner

The laws of physics that made possible the functioning of the Orvilles' flying machine are the same that make it possible for a 747 to take off and stay aloft.

However, the laws of biology that make it possible to clone tissue are not the same as the laws that make it possible to clone an organ or, on a larger scale, an entire organism.

In another words, you cannot compare apples with oranges.

I can certainly cite the benefits to both achieved through the principles of experimentation, application, and improvement that pervade all successful scientific disciplines -- whether aerodynamics, agriculture, or biology.

And I certainly question the idea that there are different "laws" of biology that govern the cloning of tissues, organs, or entire organisms; but expect, rather, that there are different techniques, procedures, and other particulars, simply yet to be determined.

If I may interrupt you guys long enough to put in my two cents worth, it has generally been my observation that when someone refers to cloning an organ, they are usually referring to the cloning an individual vital organ such as a heart or kidney in some kind of a tank, or other container of some sort.

The way I read the page to which you provided a link, Bob, it does not refer to the cloning an organ in a tank or other container. Instead, it refers to in situ regeneration of bone tissue. It seems to me that these are two entirely different things.

Since I have been convinced for some time that in situ regeneration of vital organs (as well as other vital and non-vital tissue) will occur long before it will ever be possible to "clone an individual vital organ in a tank," I find general agreement with the original statement by Bernhard: "You can't clone an organ, per se."

Other examples.

Good point Bob. I guess We are a LONG way from having a large group of people that can see the rational extensions of present scientific discoveries. ;)

Bob -

What about the fact that there is such an outcry AGAINST human cloning? This was not a problem with animals. No one protested because people probably thought it wasn't going to happen any time soon. Now that mammals have been cloned, people are talking about making it illegal etc. (By the way, does this apply only to federal money being used so that private companies can go ahead or would it apply to everyone in the nation?) I for one am a curious person and it wouldn't bother me at all if someone were to attempt it. I just hope that if they succeed, they aren't going to destroy the product if they decide it turns out to be "defective". Does anyone know what stage Seed is at his attempt?

Melody, you addressed Bob, but this is an open message board and I will attempt an answer.

As far as I know, there are no restriction on animal cloning. I do not believe that any federal money is being spent on animal cloning, although I do not know for sure.

There is a ban on the use of federal funds for human embryo research, and, according to a decision by the FDA, human embryo research involving nuclear transfer is considered to be a cellular or genetic therapy which requires prior approval by the FDA. Full term human cloning for reproductive purposes would, of necessity, involve embryo research deemed by the FDA to be cellular or genetic therapy, and, as such, would be illegal without prior approval by the FDA.

Therefore, although there is no specific federal law against full term human cloning, since the FDA has ruled that without prior FDA approval it is illegal, and since the FDA has announced that it has no intention of granting approval of embryo research that could result in full term cloning, it is, for all intents and purposes, illegal (in the absence of a court test).

Not started. According to one of the links to articles at the top of this page, The Duke of Seed has no money and no institutional backing. He says his wife has agreed to carry the child although she is, by his own admission, "post-menopausal" and he refuses to give details of how he expects the pregnancy to work. He currently says he will do it within the next 2 1/2 years. (My recollection is that six months ago, he said he would do it within a year.)

Full term human cloning for reproductive purposes would... be illegal without prior approval by the FDA. - Cliff Beall

Correct, but the general consensus is that the FDA could be successfully challenged in court.

There is nothing in the FDA's charter that allows this agency to ban human cloning.

I believe once a successful human clone has been "manufactured," companies with big bucks will take the FDA to court on this matter.

This is how I see it.

The FDA or any other government body has absolutely no right to control anyone's reproduction.

Any interference on an individual exercising their reproductive rights with consenting adults constitutes an assault.

This is not communist China. It is not going to become communist China.

This is not Nazi Germany. It is not going to become Nazi Germany.

Assisted reproduction is between the patient and their doctor.

If reproductive rights are not contained in unalienable rights then I really don't know which ones are.

No and I don't beleive there can be.

Try born instead of "manufactured", and if the stories I've read about people who want clildren but can not have them "naturally" are true, I don't they will bother about court.

It looks like transgenic parenting is going to get very strange.

In the past we frequent students of cloning progress have asked CNN to create a "Genetic Engineering" site.

New breaking developments should increase in the near future as industrial progress quickens.

Bernhard, I agree that a successful court challenge "should" be possible. (How in the world could cloning be considered a "cellular or genetic therapy"?) The FDA clearly exceeded their charter. But there is a problem. The safe way to make the court challenge is before a human is cloned. That way, if one lost, there would be no penalty, just the cost of the lawsuit. So why don't "companies with big bucks" take the FDA to court on this matter before the fact? The reason is that any such attempt would probably be a loser.

And attempting it without approval is hazardous. If it is successful, meaning a healthy child is born, the maximum penalty would probably be a moderate fine. But if the experiment is not successful, particularly if a monstrosity is born, the person(s) responsible would probably never see the outside of a prison again. There are enough laws around that might be interpreted as applying in this case such that a clever prosecutor could put these "criminals" away for a long time.

Carl, I thing the point that Bob made recently about unalienable rights being a subject in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, is a good one. According to Bob, the Constitution "(being a more 'legally-oriented' document) eschews such vagueness and gets rather specific as to just what rights are had by whom."

Carl, that is a particularly strong argument for nurture.

Also, I might mention that recently, the subject of personality of twins came up on this board, and I took the position that personality is genetic. But what about people who have developed "multiple personalities"? On reflection, it would appear that not all of these personalities could be genetically derived. Indeed, the multiplicity of personalities in those cases that have been examined have typically been traced to psychological causes--principally abuse. In view of that and the link you provided, I am suddenly less certain than I was before that most behavior has a genetic root. The evidence is rapidly unfolding. We should know the relative importance of each within the next several years.

Carl Nicolai:

Thanks for the endorsement. Somewhat of a shock to see an intelligent response amidst all the 'peanut shells' raining down from the balcony. Expecially liked the "rational extensions" bit -- exactly what I had in mind.

Cliff Beall:

Should have waited 'til one of your mentors had spoken (see immediately above), before putting your warts in it. I consider all contemporary accomplishments to be merely 'curtain raisers' to what is 'waiting in the wings'. And, amongst what authoritative population have you found "general agreement" (consensus) with the "original statement"?

Melody Chen:

Of course "people" are. Those "people" are the die-hard religionists who are becoming increasingly frantic as they watch their ridiculous myths crumble before their eyes. But they would rather drive man back into the 'Dark Ages' their ilk originally caused than to see the triumph of minds they can never comprehend.

Warts:

If "consensus" means "general agreement" (and Merriam-Webster says it does), does "general consensus" mean "general general agreement" (or something to that effect)?

Superb reference -- and a new 'Links' entry for me. I, with the BBC science editor Dr David Whitehouse, found the 'transgenic worm' more interesting by far than the 'old hat' sexual plight of the unfortunate young goat.

Imagine the outcry if Darwin could have reached (intellectually) that far back -- I bet all the then extant Anglican bishops (and their fatuous, socially self-conscious wives ("I hope it isn't true; but if it is, I hope it doesn't become generally known.") would have been delighted to settle instead for an 'Uncle Ape'.

I certainly date the birth of freedom in the US with the Declaration of Independence. That is the date every one celebrates as the nations birth day.

This country is now being treated to a whole lot of legal mumbo jumbo and certain forces are going over the constitution with a fine tooth comb. Some people don't even know what the definition of sexual relations are any more. ;) Maybe we will have to work on this. I note that the Commission on Cloning was very reluctant to even call cloning reproduction. Some of them referred to it as duplication.

Our forefathers could not invision cloning, but as a form of reproduction it is covered by all the constitutional cases and case law that Tom Anderson and others have cited in the past cloning group. He has a great section in the clonning FAQ.

I think all of the regulars admit that cloning is going to engender a lot of new law in the near future, and maybe for a long time to come.

I'd sure like to hear some more arguments.

The term 'clone' seems to be extensible to satisfy practically every bias -- so, consider the following:

A man and a woman (married or not (who cares)) want to produce (not adopt) a baby -- neither is 'conventionally' fertile. The genetic-manipulative techniques of their day -- not 'today'; pick your own (personally comfortable) 'tomorrow' -- allow for such control of meiosis and re-combination of its products as to permit the formation of a diploid nucleus, which is then inserted into an enucleated and properly prepared somatic cell from the woman. The cell is then implanted into the mother-to-be (either the same woman or a surrogate) and the cell progresses through its otherwise normal stages to a 'bouncing baby' whatever. In other words, the 'test tube baby' techniques we've had with us for years will have graduated to a new level.

Can it be done 'today' -- I expect not. Can/will it be done (some) 'tomorrow' -- don't risk 'the farm' betting against it.

Brings to mind an earlier post in which Melody Chen called for improved 'rights' for 'all sentient beings' (she, apparently, meant cows, and such).

Don't (as some others) be too quick to mis-read content as well as intent. The Declaration of Independence certainly marks the birth of our nation. But it principally cites whose laws we won't obey. The Constitution completes the procedure and stipulates whose laws (ours) we will obey. I post this not as a petty (or petulant) argument, but simply as a (perhaps necessary) clarification.

What the heck are you talking about, Bob? I merely pointed out that your link did not counter Bernhard's statement, and explained why. Specifically what "warts" are you talking about?

Merely observation. I have been on this board a long time, and have talked with a lot of different people on this board. In times past, we have had long arguments about the ethics of, and technical viability of, cloning organs outside the body (as well as with respect to headless (brainless) bodies containing the organs). Invariably, when someone starts talking about cloning organs, they mean cloning of individual vital organs such as hearts and kidneys "outside the body," and/or "in a tank." Your link referred to in situ regeneration of bone tissue. In short, it was absolutely and completely beside the point.

Me too.

Nothing new. Been happening for some two hundred and some years.

I hear you, Carl. But, really, does anybody really believe that? Personally, I think "oral contact" is "contact," and "oral manipulation" is "manipulation." (I think I will quit here.)

Give it time, Carl. Even relatively sophisticated people need some time, sometimes.

I agree in part here. The case law is ever changing. The Constitution is what the nine Justices think it is. I say, don't push things that don't need to be pushed.

I am beginning to wonder. Despite the original Seed scare, only two states have enacted laws against cloning. And none in the so-called Bible Belt! Hell, that surprises even me.

Last year, it looked certain that we were going to have some type of federal law that would ban human cloning for reproductive purposes. The only question was which law and whether it would have a sunset provision. Remember that?

Maybe we can just rock along without an excess of laws we don't need while the technology develops, and we find out which ones we do need.

I'll sure go along with that. Sheesh! Bob might even agree. ;)

Are humans Earth's most intelligent children? Using the human ideals of intelligence, yes. Other species may argue, but until they can convince us of their case I expect law to reflect a human-centric bias. :-)

While fearing the re-opening of this particular can of worms; Self determination is either the central illusion that sentient minds operate on, or it is physical reality. Functionally, there is no significant difference.

We can thank a couple of decades of B-grade fiction for this controversy. "Clone wars," "Organ banks," and the "mysterious impostor" are all ethically and/or economically infeasible propositions. Cloning is no more ethically impactive, when safely available, than in vitro fertilization.

Personally; I'm holding out for regeneration and nano-bots!

Ignoring the other 'chaff' --

re: Nicolai (quoting Beall): "... without an excess of laws we don't need ..."

The cost of maintaining the public 'dole' for lawyers knows no limit; it is, therefore, fiducially imperative that we have an excess of laws (we don't need).

re: Fosberg -- "Other species may argue ...":

I can understand a human arguing (pro bono?) for another species; but I have, as yet, not heard of another species capable of mounting what is generally recognized as an 'argument' (goes to support our claim as 'most intelligent'). But, considering some I've heard from humans, I think I might find it an informative and, even, entertaining alternative.

I'm also 'all the way' (with Adlai?) for tissue regeneration and nano-bots (Americans will do anything to avoid a clearly self-defining term); but I do not doubt that (some form of) human cloning will be realized -- if for no reason other than to 'see' how to do it.

Ever try to resist a puppy when he wants a bite of your burger? "Mmm, what a big juicy freshly-grilled cheeseburger! Bet you wish you could have a bite of this, Rex!" (Big brown eyes, blink blink) "Stop it. You're not getting one." (Blink, soft whimper) "Ug... I hate it when you do that... Okay, just a little piece..."

While not exactly an argument, sometimes I wonder...

bob faulkner,
I imagine the ceatacions may find us lacking in our limited language and perceptions of our environment, but, since we are the current apex of the food chain, we get to define the boundries of what does and does not constitute intelligence.

I will certainly conceed, though I don't believe I have made an argument to conceed, that cloning of humans will happen. I expect it to be small scale and rather anti-climatic in light of the debate on morality. It will be just one more 'bullet' in the broceures at fertility clinics!

Then again; There could be fires, earthquakes, floods, tornados and biblical destruction! (I hope I find out before I sod my lawn; I wouldn't want to do that to no purpose!)

When that puppy stops drooling and starts giving clear, quotable argument ... you can stop wondering and start worrying. (Ever consider screen-writing?)

Cetaceans (I presume you mean whales, dolphins, etc.) prove only that brain size is not, per se, a criterion for intelligence -- but we already know that from comparisons of brain size in humans. But isn't that built-in sonar great? How would you like to be able to run as fast as a cheetah? be as strong as a great ape? fly like a humming-bird? etc., etc. Fine, but nothing on earth even nears the intelligence of homo sapiens sapiensis -- and that statement stands in fact even against all the efforts of the Disney screen-writers, and the other, lamentable, faults of our species.

I have no idea what that means.

Best to check the Pat Robertson predictions channel. (That pernicious clown makes even the old Jew prophets seem real!)

Bob, I take it from this that lawyers are another group you don't like. Is there anyone you do like?

I loved that image of a dog "giving clear, quotable argument." I don't know why, but it had me rolling on the floor. My wife thought I had a heart attack or something.

Okay, suppose Mr. Seed is successful, little "Seedling" pops out, grows up, and does it again (here comes "Seedlingling"). Eventually, without genetic refreshment (i.e., genetic input from TWO parents), genetic damage will accumulate and manifest itself, spawning God knows what. The question - is anybody responsible, or does it even matter? Or do we just laugh and send 'em off to the sideshow? ("Tough luck, LingLing!") Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this...

Mr. Lynch,
Although you are correct in presuming that an endless string of cloned individuals will at some point become inviable, I don't see a real danger.

Even ignoring the unknowable developments in science and society that will accumulate over three or four generations; Who is to say that children engendered through cloning will wish to follow in their parent's footsteps?

I really don't think that the collective ego of humanity is so great that we would forego the, er... traditional means of reproduction so that we could invoke mass cloning in its place.

I think the public is just upset about cloning because now the Homosexual community can reproduce more than the Chinese. MMmmm Mmmm.. hear the gay lil buns in the oven already. Who needs to adopt, when you can raise your male/female spouse as your own.. I see a lot of promise here. Hello Pop Tarts, good Bye Family values! HEhehe.. Isn't this fun. And people thought the Pope was uptight. hehe

Jack,
That is just plain silly. Cloning is totally non-impactive upon the capacity of homosexuals in reproductive matters.

Women who wish to have children have no great difficulty doing so. They can even use in vitro methods if using a male donor in the traditional way is to distasteful.

I have heard (I welcome an actual informed statement) that it is not all that uncommon for gays to mary so that they can have children.

Sure! But I doubt you would know them. Have I hit a tender, personal favorite by trashing the legal cherubim? As regards that 'venue' I'm pleased to side with 'Dear William', as in --

and:

Well lets see if I can do this without getting everything screwed up.

First it appears that the amount (area) of grey matter is the only thing that correlates with the unbelievable primitive tests of so called "intelligence" or "g" in a physically measurable manner sans the "strobe to secondary processing EEG response speed"

Next there are three ways 20th century humans suspect that Intelligence is high. One is the utilization of language the second is the ability to solve complex problems. The third is evidence of a perceived moral or even ethical explanation for actions.

Some Cetaceans seem to shine on all three. First while dolphins can learn english no humans have learned anything but the most primitive of dolphin language. We know they have a sophisticated language because if you teach one dolphin a trick and it is connected by a sonic link to another the second one will learn it a great deal faster, we just don't have a clue of how to decipher this language.

---Cont.---

---Cont.---

Then there is the penetration of the air water interface. Try skin-diving in a pool, and look up at what is happening when someone throws a ball across it. The patchwork of blurred, broken and spatially displaced images is like trying to make sense out of a picture of something taken through a bathroom window. Mathematically it is the real time solving of a 3 dimensional forier (sp?) transform. Now with millions of dollars of CPU time on some super computers, we can solve this in two dimensions of a still image. Dolphins can do this with a fish thrown across a pool so that they can predict just where it will hit the water, swim over to the entry point, and even tell by the visual image whether the fish is alive or dead. This in real time.

Then there is the moral aspect. Even though dolphins have been tortured to the point of death they have never been known to attack a warm blooded animal except to evade. They have, for many hundreds of years, been known to save men or even dogs from drowning by pushing them ashore.

Cloning, particularly transgenicly engineered cloning is going to reveal some more of the possibilities of intelligence (cognitive) enhancement. IMHO

After reading several of the posts on this subject, I have come to a conclusion about the pseudo-intellectual, part-time Barnes and Noble employee (probably about a college sophomore), Bob Faulkner. Bob finds childish enjoyment in attacking the opinions of others with the big words he looks up. Bob even uses Shakespearean quotes in an attempt to impress, how pathetically laughable. Grow up Bob, you aren't always right. Chances are, with your narrow-minded arrogance, you rarely are.

Are you really suggesting that dolphins learn tricks by having the tricks explained to them? in English? The ability to associate phoneme (or other sound (like whistles)) sequences with commands for specific action (tricks) has been demonstrated by dogs long before we were aware of it in dolphins; but, to suggest that either "can learn English" (watch out, you Disney screen-writers) is really pathetic.

And there's a fish in the Amazon that can 'calculate' (totally inappropriate term) just where to aim and 'squirt' (from beneath the surface) a jet of water to knock an insect off a low-hanging branch (must be a genius). Are you aware that we (humans) optically 'see' the world upside-down, and that it's the (automatic, unconscious) functioning (not 'calculation') of the brain that 'rights it' for us? (And, I understand, the dolphins determine that the fish is alive or dead by (automatic, unconscious) interpretation of the sonar return, not the visual image).

The very concept of morality is human. There is no place for consideration of morality in (other) animals.

I don't care a fig for the Bob-3, Carl-0 score; but that you should mount such a patently absurd argument is a new low even for this board.

Wrong on (at least) most counts, Bubbie! (What did you use to come to that "conclusion", some discounted item from 'Rent-a-Brain'?)

I am not (and never was) a 'Barnes and Noble employee' (are they the only ones in your limited experience who are literate?). I am comfortably retired from a successful and (very) lucrative career in Information Systems (analysis, design, technical writing, consulting, instruction, programming, etc.), which I pursued after receiving my academic degree (that's usually two (2) years after sophomore) in an unassociated subject.

I attack the opinions of others not with "big words" (how do you determine that attribute: count the letters? (no fair using fingers and toes)) but with the analytical and writing abilities I have demonstrated all my professional career (and beyond). How clever of you to 'figure out' that 'Dear William', and the quotes, referred to Shakespeare -- is it you who spends time at Barnes and Noble?

And it took little more than immature, narrow-minded arrogance for you to 'pen' that raw ad hominem attack against me, without a single reference to the content of any of my postings. To paraphrase a more common saw: Intellectual is as intellectual does! -- and you reveal yourself as "pseudo" across-the-board.

Oh good! Someone to play with.

Child's play his head is out of water. Next!

More childs play. An inversion function. A simple lens can do it.

If anyone can do the air water interface with sonar I sure want to meet them/it. The impedance mismatch is way beyond even the stuff I described. Naaaaaah! they can see it.

Here is a good place to engage you.

I find your statement a little arrogant for a 20th century earthworm, but just what makes you so sure that morality isn't something your kith discovered and clamed as it's own?

Cloning and genetic engineering will demonstrate that morality and even ethics is a universal trait. (not that this is required for the argument)

Come on back.

Play with this:

His gills, and eyes, are in the water; and he still has to 'calculate' the force/trajectory 'equation'. Except that, of course (and the point is), he doesn't 'calculate' anything. Just like a human, mathematical 'idiot savant' cannot explain how he 'knows' what day a given date is.

But "a simple lens" doesn't do it for us -- it's a function of the brain; check a competent source.

There's no air water interface after the fish hits the water -- check your own reference to verify just when they determine it.

Characterize yourself, worm; and do you not claim some kith with other humans? or is your disdain for your own kind so complete you would discount even our most characteristic attribute. It stands and remains that morality is a human concept and term, and not a very strong 'crutch' to lean on. Accommodation to survival is expressed in several modes; animals arrive at theirs by dint of evolution. Humans can (and too often do) pretend to morality to accomplish the most immoral aims.

'Come on back', Rubber Duck.

The subject is cloning. Cloning is not just a "macro" thing but can contain very small parts that make up very important charastics of beings.

The nature of the "future" beings is no longer dominated by inconprenceable forces but is now becoming subject to "self evolution" This is new.

To have some way of judging what "may" happen it is necessary to extend our view in every rational way we can.

It is this view that can lead us into the future.

The "old" religions just can not move fast enough to provide guidance for the concerned creators of this new technology.

I understand your frustration in trying to cope with people whose ignorance and limited viewpoints can threaten the progress that must come.

You must realize that you and your viewpoints are not isolated.

I think you have a lot to offer.

You are not alone.

Bob,

"Bubbie?" "Rent-a-brain?" Good one, I'll have to remember that if I ever find myself in an altercation with a third grader. I can tell that I have touched a nerve, and it amuses me that you feel you need to give your (made-up) professional and academic resume in an attempt to gain credibility. You claim to have had a "lucrative" career in IS, including consulting and programming, yet your degree is not in CS. Yeah, right. Thanks for the laugh Bob, and good luck next semester. Sorry to have exposed you, but I couldn't resist.

P.S. No need to make up stories about your career, education, etc. Just be yourself, people will probably like you for who you are.

What I am reading is all very well and good, but...What about the child? What are they going to tell this child about why he/she is brought into the world and what effect will that have on the child? Philosophy about what makes a human a human won't do much for the child's feelings. Most of us would like to believe that we were brought into this world out of love between two human beings. Where is the love in this relationship? Cloning another human being is still a responsibility.

Confortably retired old man? Bob, are you kidding. I have to say that I never pictured you as a "comfortable" old man. "Angry" young man? Now that would be something I could believe!

Regarding how you attack the opinions of others, it seem to me that you have "mellowed" some in the month or so that you have been on this board. For example, you now appear much less inclined for name calling and personal attacks and more inclined to attack opposing arguments in a civil fashion. I have enjoyed some of your recent contributions (arguments). In short, you do not appear to be nearly as angry now as you did in the beginning. But, at no time have you ever sounded like a "comfortable" anything!

Not saying it isn't so, you understand, but, Bob, as they say: "You could have fooled me."

Message 163 and 164 deleted by CNN (contents unknown).

From CNN Interactive Community:

[This message along with others from several posters were removed by staff]

As a reminder, messages which do not relate to the topic of the board, contain personal attacks or copyright material will be removed without further notice.

Thank you for your help in making the CNN Community the best on the web.

-CNN Community Staff

What did they tell the first in vitro fertilized child? Or the second one, or the first thousand such children fertilized outside the womb. All they have ever needed to do is say to the child, "I love you," over and over. If it is sincere, and if it is said often enough, it will suffice.

Some of us would like to think we were brought into this world because somebody wanted a child to love, not because two people couldn't keep their hand off each other.

I do not have any statistics on this, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that a smaller percentage of in vitro fertilized children are abused, than are naturally conceived children. I strongly suspect that that would be a very safe bet. You disagree?

Let us hope the love is for the child.

Of course it is. So is begetting a child the traditional way.

Very nice Cliff, I feel no need to add to that.

Sorry about the ceatation digression, but I do feel that we tend to have difficulty thinking outside of pre-concieved patterns; Pointing out that our assumed supperiority is based, not upon objective points, but upon subjective points is often useful.

An interesting point comes up in tangent however; Does cloning have a technological utility?

Can we use cloning to support the development of biotechnologies, particularly in information processing?

Well said.

One of the things that has not been considered in the human genome project is that in as much as there is 90 % of the total DNA structure that apparently does not have any purpose, it is entirely possible that some of this "reserve space" could be used to add capabilities that other creatures have to the human abilities.

While polymorphic traits would be very hard to insert in the human genome doing so could produce an evolved human. We will undoubtedly start with race horses or some equally mundane pursuit but useful traits will be cloned into the human genome as soon as the genetic diseases are under control. For one thing we will rush to adapt humans to live in space.

No question about it.

About a year ago there was a story about Adelman of the fameous RSA crypto team who got a solution to a problem by cloning sections of genetic materal that had been designed to solve such a math problem.

Each tiny "computer" might take a week to give an answer but when you have enough, like 10E40, of them the total power can be made greater than our present day supercomputers.

Cloning could be used to reproduce "bio computing" cells at an extremely low cost.

I'll try to find the article.

Sheesh! It was 4 years ago.

I found the origional paper in Science about Adleman's work.

It is better than the "for public mass consumption story" I read.

In the event that anyone is interested--other than Carl and me--a sort of archive, containing most of the messages posted on the old cloning board, has been established at the following address on a machine in Taiwan:

Click this address to be transported to the land of the Cloning Chronicles. On that page, you will find links to most of the messages of the old cloning board--except for gaps as noted--plus the thirty-four messages entered into the new cloning board prior to e-mail verification. Messages from the current message board will be added to the archive from time to time, later.

If you like it, I would appreciate hearing about it. But since this page is actually Carl's brainchild, if you don't like it, you should complain directly to Carl.

Soon after the new Cloning messageboard appeared with the numbering starting over with 1 again and no mention of the messages from the old message board, Carl indicated a desire for a text archive of the old messages and asked if anyone had any of the messages saved . Unfortunately, I had most of them saved and I got sucked into the project. (BTW, the archive does contain some messages that CNN deleted. For example, if anyone is interested in the "babel dispersus" posts, the archive contains every post that Tom Anderson posted under the name: "babel dispersus." They start with message number 2984.) From my point of view, however, the major highlights consist of the posts written by Dawn Willis.

It should be understood that for compatibility reasons, the messages are in text format. Unfortunately, the formatting of the files converted to text format are uneven. In some cases, the paragraphs run together. We plan to try to fix most of the significant problems in the next several weeks, but in the meantime, we decided to make it available, as is. Take a look if you are interested.

It's too bad the science of cloning would be perverted if allowed to become publicly accessable. There would be so much good to come from this wonderful technological advancement! Governments would abuse this also. I can imagine what would be, if certain perverts or certain governments had access to cloning.

Do you mean cloning, itself, or the comments on cloning on this board, Claudia?

Greg, as far as I know, there is no restrictions on the "science of cloning" in the USA. There is a current FDA restriction on "full term" cloning of humans without permission by the FDA. Is that what you mean?

Very true. Animal cloning, with the promise of improved therapies that it brings, represents a tremendous advance in medical science.

I am aware of no current abuse of this technology. Can you give an example of what you consider to be an existing abuse. (Note: my challenge to you is to cite an actual existing abuse of the technology, not to imagine a possible one. I am not really interested in what you might imagine. But if you have some solid, or maybe not so solid, evidence of abuse, lets hear it.)

Cliff- I did not say current abuse. If you want examples, how about a pedophile or misled homosexual harnessing the capabilities to clone? What would become of the cloned child being raised by an immoral? There are people out there who would use this technology to promote all kinds of immoral lifestyles. What if the Chinese government deciced to create a race of super human non-fearing warriors to invade and conquer other countries?

Okay, Greg, how about a pedophile or "misled" homosexual harnessing the capabilities of traditional procreation or in vitro fertilization? What becomes of any child who is seriously abused by an adult, gay or straight?

I must tell you that I do not see the degree of concern you expressed. I think one reason is that I have this strong suspicion-which I expressed in a recent post--that a smaller percentage of in vitro fertilized children are abused, than are naturally conceived children. The reason I consider this to be a strong likelyhood is that I suppose that most people who have children by in vitro fertilization are people who really want a child, and who intend to love that child, as opposed to a significant number of people who have children "by accident" when using the "traditional" method. Do you agree or disagree? And why?

Unless you disagree, I can not possibly see why you would have such concern for clones, particularly. In short, with respect to the things you mentioned, cloning is not needed to realize your worst fears. That happens every day. Actually, all of the things that you have mentioned as being possible evils of cloning, can easily be done without cloning.

Therefore, I consider this to be a non-issue unless you can provide some real evidence to the contrary.

If you want examples, how about a pedophile or misled homosexual harnessing the capabilities to clone? What would become of the cloned child being raised by an immoral? - greg new

Give me a break! Do you think clones will be available for the perverted masses? At $10/piece, perhaps?

Clones will be available only to those capable of shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Pedophiles and homos will find it much cheaper and more convenient to satisfy themselves with the staple that is currently available.

Well, maybe not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But, basically, I think your point is well taken.

Ok people-- I just wanted to express the evils that will result from public access to cloning. The examples i mentioned are merely that, examples. Yes I agree, that if a couple are seeking fertilization through artificial means than the desire is more intense to concieve than an accidental pregnancy. As far as the financial difficulties of paying for such a procedure, it will follow the same old path. It will be costly at first, then the fees will drop and be covered by insurance policies. The science of cloning should be used to fight world hunger and to fight disease and the such. My worst fears are exactly that. Evil governments and evil people will do evil things with cloning. Of course there will be those who will find a way to make the evils that men do seem not so evil or even good. Like I said. It's a pitty that such a wonderful advancement carries with it such volitile baggage.

The science is publicly accessible now. There is no restrictions on what equipment or chemicals anyone can buy to clone anything from snips of DNA to whole animals.

You just don't go around telling governments what to do. (Heck you even have problems with individuals let alone governments)

I know of no legal national restriction on cloning humans. Did I miss something, or are the employees of the FDA now legislators?

Well you had better get ready to face these evils because the cat is way out of the bag.

I feel that in the near term these "evils" are totally overestimated. I also feel the near term price is over estimated. 5,000 US$ should do it in 5 years. With 6,000 US$ and the correct paperwork you can legally adopt a girl baby in China now.

People who think legal restrictions will stop cloning are just going to have to wake up. The most powerful restrictions (short of open war) have failed to contain nuclear weapons for more than 15 or so years. Atomic bombs are very hard to build because of the materials. Cloning is child's play. ( No pun intended ;) )

Carl Nicolai,

"Did I miss something, or are the employees of the FDA now legislators?"

If you are in posession of morphine (which is an FDA schedule III controlled substance) without a prescription, you are in violation of the law. So yes Carl, in a sense, they are.

If they are legislating, then they and anyone who aids them are in violation of the constitution and their rules can simply be ignored.

In some cases they may be conspiring to violate individuals rights and in extreme cases treason.

Arrest and take them to trial.

No problem, in reality, with drugs though! No one is going to defend someones right to take drugs. The press is just too bad.

However abuse of authority in a drug case is one thing. Reproductive rights are another. Cloning and other forms of assisted reproduction is serious business for someone wanting a child and unable to do so by "natural means".

BTW I thought morphine was a schedule II drug.

Well, maybe not hundreds of thousands of dollars. - Cliff Beall

Hundreds of thousands of $, initally (it is my understanding it costs $2-3 million to clone a dog now.)

Even if the method of human cloning has been standardized, I believe the costs to clone humans will be kept artificially high, so that this cloning process is not subject to abuse by the proletariat.

I understand that a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal. Does that mean that the members of the Supreme Court are legislators?

Actually, Carl, we have two similar related situations here: a Supreme Court with the power to rule that existing law on abortion (for example) is illegal, and a government agency, the FDA, with the power to rule that full term cloning (for example) is illegal per an interpretation of existing law.

In my opinion, both decisions leave something to be desired. But there is no sense in making believe that either does not have the force of law.

Bernhard, I disagree. Nothing in a free society is kept artificially high for any extended period of time. Competition prevents that.

Carl Nicolai,

You may be right about morphine being a schedule II, I am not sure. I was under the impression that drugs considered to be habit forming were usually schedule III... not sure though.

Cloning as we currently practice & understand it amounts to making a genetic copy of somebody who is already here. The result is essentially the same as identical twins, except that twins are the same age, whereas clone and cloned are not.

However, I see comments about using cloning technology to create fearless armies, or supergeniuses, or whatever. That's a completely different idea. Cloning is relatively simple; it only requires the ability to manipulate pre-existing DNA and some skill in test-tube fertilizing.

But designing specific kinds of people to be conceived through cloning is way beyond current technology. It requires the creation of new, specifically designed DNA from scratch. That's way down the road.

In general, the intended purpose for animal cloning is to modify the animal genome such that it produces a human protein in that animal's milk. That this has been the intended purpose for animal cloning, from the beginnning, might be expected to give rise to a feeling that cloning facilitates gene modification.

Tim, the "some skill in test tube fertilizing" phrase you used seems to indicate you are referring to in vitro fertilization. I have been given to understand that nuclear transfer is considerably more difficult and requires a much higher skill level than "simple" in vitro fertilization.

Who knows? Perhaps it will be as simple as removing a gene here and there or combining the existing genes differently. (But, of course, "simple" is a relative term.)

Cloning and Genetic Engineering probably have more power to change our perception of ourselves and life in general than anything thus conceived.

All power is amoral. It is the uses to which it is put that gives certain power a reputation. If atomic power had first surfaced for electricity generation we probably would not as afraid of it as we are now.

The Frankenstien complex is a very real mental illness. The idea that people will build monsters that will turn against them has been around a relatively long time.

Cool clear rational thinking is the only way I can see that will not pit various elements of society against each other.

CNN poses the question, "Do you think Seed should be allowed to clone himself?".

The question might be well put, "How severe should the punishment be for someone who tries to forcibly stop Seed from cloning himself?".

If you think our society had a problem with alcohol prohibition, and now has a severe problem with drug prohibition, just let the "State" tell people how they must, or must not reproduce and see what happens to the concept of human rights. (consenting adults)

BTW Cliff: The only regulation I know about that could be used to violate individuals rights to reproduce is the "reporting requirements" on assisted reproduction. Given the lack of fraud and having good informed consent paperwork should leave these decisions to the parties involved, namely patients and doctors.

The FDA was formed to insure safety in food and drugs, not control peoples legitimate free choices. They probably should not be carrying guns.

As the parent of a special needs child, I am really scared. The main problem I have with providing my child's needs is dealing with so-called professionals who are more worried about their egos and their record than the legally defined job they chose to do. I wouldn't trade one day of my life with my child for that of a "regular" child. Nature finds a way, in this it is our way to remain humble. All I'm saying is that is seems to me to be the ultimate way to achieve Hitler's goal without the guilt of murder.

Angela,
Excuse me, but; What?

Cloning in humans will never (at least in the U.S.) be anything more than a novel way to have a baby, like in-vitro.

The real opportunities for medical advancement (and for profit therein) lie in cloning animals which do not have the protection of the Bill of Rights.

All power is amoral. - greg new.

I agree. God is amoral.

You make an excellent point here Keith. While it is true that abuses will occur with cloned human beings the real problem is that there is scant protection for individual animals.

The gap between human and animals has been narrowed as we learn more about certain animal capabilities. Foremost among the most powerful are the use of language and the use of tools.

Genetic engineering combined with micro cloning of individual traits should lead to the development of animals that approach, equal, or even lead some conventional humans in cognitive and communicative abilities.

Every one knows that if you produce what is viewed as a malformed human you are going to be in trouble, rational or not. A malformed animal that has human abilities is a much safer way to proceed.

Then there is the matter of gestation. For many years rabbits have been used to ferry cow ovum across international borders to get around the quarantine restrictions. Recently there have been some successes in getting one animal to gestate another species.

Except for the viral problem there doesn't seem to be any reason that a modified animal could not carry a human to term or the reverse. This is going to seriously blur the picture even further.

The sharp biblical division of "man born of woman" will fall and there is little clear vision of what to put in it's place.

Many people keep reinserting the name Hitler on this subject. Hitler and in fact the entire Nazi system did not have a clue about the possibilities of this technology. Even the science fiction writers have only scratched the surface.

Bernhard, this is way off the subject, and I know you were just funning. But if God does not exist, what you say must be a lie. And if God does exist, your statement represents a personal attack against all that is good and holy. Either way, I think you ought to have to take it back :-)

Carl, I would answer you on the FDA thing specifically, but I am tired tonight. Remember what I said the last time? Same thing.

Geez Bernie, you took the time to post the message, maybe you should look a little harder as to who posted it? Wasn't me. :)

I guess I'm really naive. I cannot think of any reason that cloning should be controlled or prohibited that wouldn't apply to "natural" reproductive methods. I do, however, see some advantages for cloning; elimination of birth defects, elimination of sexually transmitted diseases etc.

In spite of the advantages of cloning, I plan to continue with the old fashioned method.

...And if God does exist, your statement represents a personal attack against all that is good and holy. - Cliff Beall

Oh?

An attack against this so-called, all powerful, "good and holy" God, who condones the deaths of innocent men, women and children in

• Africa
• America
• Near and Far East Asia
• Europe
• South America

represents a personal attack against all that is good and holy?

You're surely joking, Mr. Beall!

Geez Bernie, you took the time to post the message, maybe you should look a little harder as to who posted it? Wasn't me. :) - greg new

My apologies, mr. new.

As this leader of our nation would have uttered:

Bernie- No offense taken. I forgive you.:)

Carl,

Yes, I know that this is advancing. In the context that you presented it though, I just can't seem to get over the idea of a rabbit attempting to bear a cow! (Man, that's gotta hurt!)

If Mr. Seed does make a successful clone and later gets pissed off at little Richard and kills him, with what crime would he be charged: murder or suicide?

A person can clone themselves all they want as far as I'm concerned.

However, what worries me , is that one day some farmers will say that a certain cow or chicken should be cloned due to their good milk output or egg output. Then , now we have hundreds of chickens or cows with the same genetic make-up. Along comes a disease or virus which wipes out the entire population of chickens or cows ONLY because they had the same genetic structure of the immune system for fighting deseases or whatever.

Get my point??????