NationStates Jolt Archive

It's true...

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/05/genetics.korea)

Scientists have opened the door for bereaved pet owners to bring their animals back from the dead after they completed the world's first successful commercial cloning of a dog.

Geneticists today unveiled five identical copies of Booger the pit bull terrier created for his American owner. The five clones cost Bernann McKinney, a Californian-based farmer, £25,000 ($50,000) and were well worth it, she said at a press conference in the South Korean capital, Seoul, where the announcement was made.

Given some of the animal ethic debates, what about kids, if your kid dies should you be able to clone it?

Is cloning going to make the future weird?

What are possible consequences?

Would it cut down on unwanted pets? Then again, what match is $10,000 per copy versus 'free kittens!'

Hmm.

Suppose some enterprising and evil clow...er...person replaced the sample to be cloned with one of his own. Would the parents get a refund? Wil there be a discount bin for faulty cloned children?

$50,000 seems relatively cheap, for a clone. I wonder if perhaps they didn't just look up a litter that looked the same ;)

Will there be a discount bin for faulty cloned children?

Ooh, I like this, discount kids.

I suppose a wider question is whether this might cheapen life - I can take a lot more risks if I can clone myself, although I understand the problem with that sort of thinking.

We could also perform some useful nature/nurture experiments.

"See, it's in LGs nature to play in mud, nothing to do with his mother rewarding him with mud when he was good".

Ooh, I like this, discount kids.

I suppose a wider question is whether this might cheapen life - I can take a lot more risks if I can clone myself, although I understand the problem with that sort of thinking.

We could also perform some useful nature/nurture experiments.

"See, it's in LGs nature to play in mud, nothing to do with his mother rewarding him with mud when he was good".

That's a question: Am I mostly the result of nature or nurture? From what I have heard from my grandmother about my father, I suspect I was fortunate enough to get the best parts of my parents and very little of the crap. My firstborn on the other hand, is mostly me with just a bit of my wife. I tend to be spontaneous with my mischief. Complex plans don't come naturally to me(oh I can and have, but it's not my norm). My son on the other hand, is a planner of mischief. He has actually used mischief as a diversion for more elaborate mischief.

The twins are full blown plotters. If they have a full blown sense of irreverence on top of that, we're all in big trouble. :p

The twins are full blown plotters. If they have a full blown sense of irreverence on top of that, we're all in big trouble. :p

Twins are natural plotters I'm afraid, there's encouragement in trusting someone so deeply that you can bounce the more outlandish ideas off someone else and have them approved as 'a great idea'.

The only real hope is that the parents don't encourage such behaviour as well...

...uh oh.

Having said that, the nurture aspect of having a clown and a policewoman as parents must be highly confusing, the hope is that they don't gain access to the clown's sense of mischief and the policewoman's array of weaponry...

...uh oh.

I'm sidetracked so easily....so, back to the subject in question, consequences of cloning...

I suppose a wider question is whether this might cheapen life - I can take a lot more risks if I can clone myself, although I understand the problem with that sort of thinking.

What sort of risks?

Well, you might take more risk because you can clone yourself, but the clone won't be You exactly because he will have different childhood, different set of experiences and memories, so he will look like you, maybe even have same name, but in general he will be different. So taking risk because you can clone yourself every time you die doesn't make sense. Would be much better if you could tap your memories to the clone too..

What sort of risks?

Smoking for instance. If you can have your lungs replaced with cloned lungs, it kind of takes the fun out of emphyzema.

Then there's full contact mixed martial arts. Will groin strikes become legal again if you can just get some new testicles plugged in?

Until cloning actually clones the neural pathways and activities, all you're getting is someone genetically similar, who may not look similar, and probably doesn't behave anything at all like you. Good for organ harvesting with minimal rejection issues, but not for making carbon copies of yourself.

That being said, imagine an LG lookalike who was a neat freak with no sense of humor and extreme mental rigidity.

Until cloning actually clones the neural pathways and activities, all you're getting is someone genetically similar, who may not look similar, and probably doesn't behave anything at all like you. Good for organ harvesting with minimal rejection issues, but not for making carbon copies of yourself.

That being said, imagine an LG lookalike who was a neat freak with no sense of humor and extreme mental rigidity.

Somewhere in an alternate universe, there is such a being and he's miserable because he's surrounded by wackos. *nod*

Smoking for instance. If you can have your lungs replaced with cloned lungs, it kind of takes the fun out of emphyzema.

Then there's full contact mixed martial arts. Will groin strikes become legal again if you can just get some new testicles plugged in?

I see. This isn't quite the same as creating another being who is a clone, unless you actually remove the lungs or testicles from a full clone of yourself which I expect the clone would be none too happy about.

I thought for a minute that Barringtonia was suggesting that you wouldn't need to worry about dying because you could be cloned, which isn't quite how this works.

the only thing that comes to mind is that Governor of CA movie with the clones...

It's true...

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/05/genetics.korea)



Given some of the animal ethic debates, what about kids, if your kid dies should you be able to clone it?

Is cloning going to make the future weird?

What are possible consequences?

Pretty ridiculous. Sure, it will look the same but there are too many variables in the environment to ensure that they will have identical personalities.

Really, things die. It sucks, but move on, people. Keep the memories and move on. It's not fair to the clone either, to have all these expectations placed on it to be a respawn of someone else.

I see. This isn't quite the same as creating another being who is a clone, unless you actually remove the lungs or testicles from a full clone of yourself which I expect the clone would be none too happy about.

I thought for a minute that Barringtonia was suggesting that you wouldn't need to worry about dying because you could be cloned, which isn't quite how this works.

Well, if we can figure out brain transplants, one could clone a new whole body and have their brain installed.

However, even with such an advancement and the ability to control the more physical aspects of brain aging, there is reason to believe that there are other electrochemical limitations on how long a human brain could remain active. I would say that extending a human mind much past 200 years, even with a perfectly healthy body, is going to be a lot more complicated than some might think.

As far as parts go, It is likely that we will soon be able to grow just a lung or a testicle with little wasted tissue. I can't wait to see a nut in a petri dish. :p

As far as parts go, It is likely that we will soon be able to grow just a lung or a testicle with little wasted tissue. I can't wait to see a nut in a petri dish. :pGives a whole new meaning to telling someone to "grow a pair of balls".

What are possible consequences?

If you believe in the "soul" and if you can understand that humans are sentient, then you'll know that cloning does not bring a person back from the dead, but it creates an identical copy of them. That deceased's sentience will still be in heaven/hell/purgatory/oblivion (for those cynical atheists out there xD).

Somewhere in an alternate universe, there is such a being and he's miserable because he's surrounded by wackos. *nod*

Or the anti-LG is close by, patiently biding his time as he plots your re-education as a serious member of society, clean cut and fastidious.

However, even with such an advancement and the ability to control the more physical aspects of brain aging, there is reason to believe that there are other electrochemical limitations on how long a human brain could remain active. I would say that extending a human mind much past 200 years, even with a perfectly healthy body, is going to be a lot more complicated than some might think.


This depends entirely on whether consciousness and the bit that makes you, you, is the electrochemical activity in the brain, or the neurons itself. If it's the former, with sufficient development into real time detailed brain scans and artificial neurons, it may become possible to replace aging and non-functional neurons with an artificial one, creating a cyberbrain of sorts, and guaranteeing physical immortality at the least.

This depends entirely on whether consciousness and the bit that makes you, you, is the electrochemical activity in the brain, or the neurons itself. If it's the former, with sufficient development into real time detailed brain scans and artificial neurons, it may become possible to replace aging and non-functional neurons with an artificial one, creating a cyberbrain of sorts, and guaranteeing physical immortality at the least.

I wonder... I wonder if you'd simply be recreating the memories/reflexes up to the point of transfer and creating the clone feeling slightly outside themselves, as though s/he's inhabiting a body and mind they do not belong to.

Disassociated somewhat.

Surely someone's written a book on this.

Not a brain transplant per se, but they have done head transplants. On monkeys atleast.

Not a brain transplant per se, but they have done head transplants. On monkeys atleast.

I checked, the monkey died fairly soon - I suspect it freaked out with the new body.

It's true...

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/05/genetics.korea)



Given some of the animal ethic debates, what about kids, if your kid dies should you be able to clone it?

I don't see why you would want to. Cloning your kid isn't going to give you back your kid. A clone is like an identical twin, and anybody who knows about identical twins knows that they aren't really identical at all. They don't even look identical most of the time. Their personalities and consciousness are quite unique.

Producing a clone after the death of one child would not be so different from simply having another kid after one kid dies. We already allow parents to use artificial means to get pregnant, and cloning probably wouldn't be dramatically different from the application standpoint.

Honestly, I think this would be one of the least significant "moral issues" raised by human cloning. The real issues would be like:

-If your kid needs a new heart to live, can you clone them one? What about if you made a whole clone of your kid, harvested its heart, and put it into the living kid?

-In theory, we could reach a point where male gametes are no longer required for reproduction, so women could have children that share 100% of their genetic material. From the perspective of natural selection, a woman who gets 100% of her genetic material into the next generation is "more successful" than a woman who only gets 50% into the next generation. Hm...

-Think of the research potential if we could study two people who are genetically identical, yet are a generation apart in age!!!

I don't see why you would want to. Cloning your kid isn't going to give you back your kid. A clone is like an identical twin, and anybody who knows about identical twins knows that they aren't really identical at all. They don't even look identical most of the time. Their personalities and consciousness are quite unique.

Producing a clone after the death of one child would not be so different from simply having another kid after one kid dies. We already allow parents to use artificial means to get pregnant, and cloning probably wouldn't be dramatically different from the application standpoint.

Honestly, I think this would be one of the least significant "moral issues" raised by human cloning.

Regardless of its irrationality, someone would do it, don't think I haven't seen Pet Sematary.

-If your kid needs a new heart to live, can you clone them one? What about if you made a whole clone of your kid, harvested its heart, and put it into the living kid?

You could grow the hearts in a petri dish, no need for the full child.

-In theory, we could reach a point where male gametes are no longer required for reproduction, so women could have children that share 100% of their genetic material. From the perspective of natural selection, a woman who gets 100% of her genetic material into the next generation is "more successful" than a woman who only gets 50% into the next generation. Hm...

Aren't male gametes naturally degrading anyway? I read this in The Red Queen, the true battle of the sexes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen_%281993_book%29

-Think of the research potential if we could study two people who are genetically identical, yet are a generation apart in age!!!

Indeed, harkening to the nature/nurture debate.

Also, Christmas presents, what if I want a mini-Mussolini to play with.

I don't see why you would want to. Cloning your kid isn't going to give you back your kid. A clone is like an identical twin, and anybody who knows about identical twins knows that they aren't really identical at all. They don't even look identical most of the time. Their personalities and consciousness are quite unique.

Producing a clone after the death of one child would not be so different from simply having another kid after one kid dies. We already allow parents to use artificial means to get pregnant, and cloning probably wouldn't be dramatically different from the application standpoint.

Honestly, I think this would be one of the least significant "moral issues" raised by human cloning. The real issues would be like:

-If your kid needs a new heart to live, can you clone them one? What about if you made a whole clone of your kid, harvested its heart, and put it into the living kid?

-In theory, we could reach a point where male gametes are no longer required for reproduction, so women could have children that share 100% of their genetic material. From the perspective of natural selection, a woman who gets 100% of her genetic material into the next generation is "more successful" than a woman who only gets 50% into the next generation. Hm...

-Think of the research potential if we could study two people who are genetically identical, yet are a generation apart in age!!!


Problem is the genetic code would degrade doing that. Every time a cell copies there's a minute chance for error. After many generations of clones you are likely to end up with unviable genetics.

I wonder... I wonder if you'd simply be recreating the memories/reflexes up to the point of transfer and creating the clone feeling slightly outside themselves, as though s/he's inhabiting a body and mind they do not belong to.

Disassociated somewhat.

Surely someone's written a book on this.

Not necessarily, there's a key difference between what you're saying and what I described. From the sounds of it, you're thinking of a transfer to a cyberbrain, while the organic brain is left intact.

What I'm talking about is the gradual replacement of neurons in the brain with artificial components, while the brain is still functioning, or at least stunted in activity while the replacement is going on.

Think of it as somewhat similar to an organ transplant, but with artificial components.

If the brain activity is undisturbed as the new components are installed into it, it is likely that it would be unchanged. In computing terms, it would be the equivalent of taking out the CPU of a computer and putting in a newer generation chip, while the operating system remains the same.

Or the anti-LG is close by, patiently biding his time as he plots your re-education as a serious member of society, clean cut and fastidious.

It's like a chess match played with mud and soap. *nod*

Regardless of its irrationality, someone would do it, don't think I haven't seen Pet Sematary.

In any responsible society, parents would have the medical facts explained to them before they went through with such a procedure. Maybe I'm naive, but I think this would work. Particularly since it's like to be very, very expensive.


You could grow the hearts in a petri dish, no need for the full child.

If you grow a whole one, you have all sorts of spare parts.


Aren't male gametes naturally degrading anyway? I read this in The Red Queen, the true battle of the sexes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen_%281993_book%29

Far too long term! Why, I might not be alive when all that comes to pass, and who the hell cares once I'm dead?!

Problem is the genetic code would degrade doing that. Every time a cell copies there's a minute chance for error. After many generations of clones you are likely to end up with unviable genetics.
Cloning wouldn't necessarily increase the odds of that, any more than normal human reproduction does. DNA repair etc. are not inherently impaired by cloning.

The problem would be more about genetic diversity. But that would assume that EVERYBODY wants to clone rather than reproduce sexually.

Not necessarily, there's a key difference between what you're saying and what I described. From the sounds of it, you're thinking of a transfer to a cyberbrain, while the organic brain is left intact.

What I'm talking about is the gradual replacement of neurons in the brain with artificial components, while the brain is still functioning, or at least stunted in activity while the replacement is going on.

Think of it as somewhat similar to an organ transplant, but with artificial components.

If the brain activity is undisturbed as the new components are installed into it, it is likely that it would be unchanged. In computing terms, it would be the equivalent of taking out the CPU of a computer and putting in a newer generation chip, while the operating system remains the same.

The Philosopher's Axe approach, fair enough.

To some extent, this would allow for complete replication on a hard drive of sorts in future.

I mean, if you'd gone back 200 years and said the heart could be replaced I suspect it would be as difficult to get one's head around, especially from an ethical perspective yet it's not presented any real problem, cloning will probably be the same.

I still want my mini-Mussolini.

I'm not a big fan of cloning things. Pets and people especially. Cows and Sheep and other such things that can be used for food I'm fine with, but cloning people and dogs and things seems like a waste or resources to me.

I think that we should definetly look into cloning individual organs, though, because just think of how many lives could be saved if hospitals had vaults of extra organs lying around!

If you grow a whole one, you have all sorts of spare parts.

If you grow a whole kid the parts aren't spare, the kid you just grew needs them.

If you grow a whole kid the parts aren't spare, the kid you just grew needs them.


Presumably, that problem would be solved with a short length of piano wire.

The problem would be more about genetic diversity. But that would assume that EVERYBODY wants to clone rather than reproduce sexually.Who would want to fuck when you could just fork over your wallet?

EDIT: On a similar note, what would happen if someone made an opposite gender version of themself to mate with? How deformed would the most inbreed child ever be?

EDIT: On a similar note, what would happen if someone made an opposite gender version of themself to mate with? How deformed would the most inbreed child ever be?

Go fuck yourself and see.

EDIT: Adding smilie just in case this is taken seriously...





:)