Topic awaiting preservation: First cloned human embryo (Page 1 of 1)

Cloned human embryos are stem cell breakthrough



[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-15-2004).]

well...cloning organs sounds pretty good...as for babies I did say; somewhat crazy...afterall we are still suffering from overpopulation

Overpopulation is a myth.

Metahuman is a myth!

Weee!

The problem with calling things myths is that they can't be proved to be a myth or not, becuase, well, they're mythical!

*Skaarjj wanders off, wondering why he's feeling strangely delirious today*

myth: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people (WordNet)

Fortunately, Skaarjj, overpopulation has previously been proved a mythical threat to human existence. I could cite hundreds of research materials that strongly supports my reply to Ruski, however, a few will do instead.

The Myth of Too Many by Michael Fumento.
Overpopulation: Myths, Facts, and Politics by Abid Ullah Jan.
A Christian View: The Overpopulation Myth by Austin Rose.
A Catholic View: The Overpopulation Myth by Dr. Jacqueline Kasun.

I attempted to filter out the subjectivity-driven resources (e.g., sites that promote a societal message like "abortion is bad").

this is indeed a facinating subject, though i must agree with the mass of pervading thoughts invading my outer senses. a true psychical and physical extension of self presevation. to the highest degree of chemo-biologic profundity.

in spite of the gains this implies for the individual, it brings the plight of philosophy and religion clearly into focus.

*hehe

South Korea is a scientifically advanced nation, probably even moreso than the US with this historical breakthrough. They were able to achieve this more quickly than the other major national powers because South Korea, being a primarily Buddhistic country, lacks the problem of Christianity.

31.7% of S. Korea is Christian compared to 23.9% Buddhist according to http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Demographics-of-South-Korea

How does that add up to a primarily Buddhistic country? And what problem with Christianity are you referring to?

. . : slicePuzzle

Hey meta! I never claimed it was a fact

there are just damn too many babies

Those figures are wrong, Bugimus.

quote:

---

Religious people / Total population: 53.6%

Percentage of religious people
buddist: 49.0%
protestant: 34.7%
catholic: 13.0%
confucian: 1.2%
others: 2.0%

Source: Social statistics survey, NSO

---

And if you don't know of the problems caused by Christianity, then I am reasonably certain you do not want to hear what they are.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-16-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Cloning cells for therapeutic purpose sounds fantastic. I see no valid reason to clone a complete human being, and it would have a severe impact on the psyche of the resulting person.

InI: Jean-Claude Van Damme is a great philosopher but really few people knows that.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Reply to InI

dense: slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity (WordNet)

Yet again you proceed with an adolescent attempt at denigration. If you don't understand those words, look to Princeton University's WordNet and not the fallacious archive known as Dictionary.com that you proudly promote as an accurate resource for all things of definitional value.

I found your ad hominem comment humorous as it was irrelevant for you state that you are amazed by your own imagination.

In addition to your less-than-tactful response, you display your overbearing ignorance through one word: evolutionism. The term "evolutionism" implies that evolution is a competing religion in the human ideosphere which it is not. That argument is commonly used by Creationists who likewise lack the intelligence and wisdom required for scientific and objective study of life. Moreover, the mythical threat of overpopulation is mythical not only because I have determined it is so, but also due to the thousands of researchers on the subject who have presented their opinion publicly through books, editorials, and other articles of information.

In matters of perception, one thing that you do that does not amaze me is this: you systematically post in socially useful threads providing topically irrelevant opinion. The word that describes a person with that specific behavior is troll.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-16-2004).]

quote:

---

...and it would have a severe impact on the psyche of the resulting person.

---

Doubtful, poi. Assuming that we are not in denial, birth through sexual reproduction has not proven to be harmful to the psyche of the resulting humans. A cloned human would be born, beginning as each of us did, and later in its life would most definitely consider its birth as natural as we consider ours. It's difficult to empathize with the perception of that which does not exist.

quote:

---

...cloning a whole individual is dangerous, and should be avoided, if not forbidden.

Now, instead of arguing about wether overpopulation is a myth or not, since it is a mathematical fact, I'd ask: why?

Darwin thaught us that "species tend to grow in number" and we did it well, so well that we are now reaching a limit.

I keep wondering.. why?

And got my opinions of course.
Now, for the overpopulation: myth or reality? debate, I find it scandalous.
Relaying on the confidence we have that "someone will solve the problem", or that "this is a myth because my referenced books say so", is refusing to face the fact and the danger within.

A problem won't be solved because we disguise it behind unfounded beliefs, a potentially dangerous situation, even if overpopulation is a myth, has to be considered
and handled seriously.

---

A typical opinion from one who has not read any information on the subject. I suggest you read those articles that I've linked before making any more inane comments.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

For those who do not yet know, InI's childish crusade against me began in this thread where he assumed the role of a bigot and opposed the citation of the source of that which I quoted while attacking the quote for he was unable to comprehend the material.

InI thinks he is proclaiming facts whereas he is actually denying the facts and promoting his beliefs.

quote:

---

New York -- A new UN report studying the effects of population growth on the environment provides information that challenges some of the most fundamental assumptions of population control, assumptions used to justify sterilization, abortion and contraception. "World Population Monitoring 2001," prepared by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, emphasizes that many of the most dire predictions about the consequences of population growth have proven unfounded, and remain unlikely to occur even if the world population rises to 8.9 billion by 2050.

The most common argument against population growth is that the earth has a "carrying capacity," a threshold number of humans beyond which civilization will descend into chronic famine, disease, poverty and civil strife. According to the report, however, "Over the period 1961-1998, world per capita food available for direct human consumption increased by 24 per cent, and there is enough being produced for everyone on the planet to be adequately nourished." Also, general advances in technology and industry have resulted in a dramatic growth in average material well-being - "From 1900 to 2000, world population grew from 1.6 billion persons to 6.1 billion. However, while world population increased close to 4 times, world real gross domestic product increased 20 to 40 times, allowing the world to not only sustain a four-fold population increase, but also to do so at vastly higher standards of living." The report shows guarded optimism that these trends will continue, and that food production will continue to grow along with the population.

Population control advocates also argue that growth will strip the world of nonrenewable resources like oil and minerals, thereby throwing economies into disarray. But, the Population Division report says, "During recent decades new reserves have been discovered, producing the seeming paradox that even though consumption of many minerals has risen, so has the estimated amount of the resource as yet untapped."

The latest argument concerns the environmental effects of population growth, including pollution, habitat destruction and the extinction of species. The report contends that population growth may contribute to some of these problems, especially fisheries depletion and water contamination, but "In general, population growth appears to be much less important as a driving force of such problems than is economic growth and technology." Even global warming will be ".mainly due to modes of production, not to the size, growth and distribution of population." Consumption patterns among developed countries with declining populations also have a detrimental impact on the environment.

The report advances no specific policy initiatives, but it emphasizes that population is only one of a number of complex, interrelated issues affecting the environment and human development. When famine occurs, for instance, it can be because "People have inadequate physical and/or economic access to food as a result of poverty, political instability, economic inefficiency and social inequity," not simply because there are too many people.

The report brings into question the ever-constant UN goal of decreasing birth rates worldwide. The Population Division, which makes all UN predictions about population growth, is seen as mostly non-ideological.

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

Source: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute; September 7, 2001

---

InI: You are systematically declining to read the resources I've graciously provided. You must be too much of a bigot to realize when you're wrong.

Here's another resource for understanding overpopulation: http://www.overpopulation.com/introduction_essay/index.html.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-16-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I agree. Your response is densely populated with dense assertions regarding overpopulation, and dense assumptions of my density.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-16-2004).]

InI:

quote:

---

Poi, human cloning has interesting uses: think about rebuilding a corrupt heart and grafting it back
to the "owner", without rejection and the common problems in those situations.

---

That's why I consider the cloning a huge leap for medecine. It could also be used to grow some genetically modified, to remove a disease, specified cells.

metahuman: by impact on the psyche I meant, that the resulting person will have some interogations about why he/she has been cloned, is he/she a "real" person, was he/she really desired by the parents or did the parents desired the "original" person ... some of these questions may found an obvious answer but a doubt will remain around the others.

One reason I heard to backup human cloning was to clone babies dead in their first months of life. It sounds damn stupid to think that the parents could "undo" the death of their baby by cloning it. I can understand the pain such parents have but cloning the baby will never cancel what happen, and it'll even have an impact on their behavior toward the baby.

Honestly I'm curious to hear some reasons to clone a whole person.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-16-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

metahuman: by impact on the psyche I meant, that the resulting person will have some interogations about why he/she has been cloned, is he/she a "real" person, was he/she really desired by the parents or did the parents desired the "original" person

---

The answers to those questions would most likely be the same as they are today when those questions are asked by adopted and original children. Realize this: you can't clone thoughts through the cloning of humans, and it's not like you put someone into a machine, and a duplicate comes out. It's nothing like that.

Humans learn by imitation and experience. A clone would learn by imitation and experience. A clone would be born like we were born. A clone would live as we live.

In a sense, clones would be more powerful than us. Perhaps way in the future, they could be genetically altered to: be free of known diseases and viruses, possess: more strength, healthier bones, increased intelligence, a more effective and efficient immune system, tougher organs, tougher skin, etc. They would be more powerful than us because they would be capable of being born with improvements. However, the purpose of stem cell research is to aid development of these enhancements so that we could make use of them. There are so many possibilities and so many valid reasons for human cloning.

The problem with the anti-cloning people is that they watch too much television and believe what Hollywood shows them. They think cloning is like that in Arnold Schwarzenegger's "The 6th Day" or like that in the cartoons. It may happen that one day we can duplicate a person--thoughts and everything--but that's not what cloning is about now.

I think people are wrong to move for the ban of stem cell research (which is what Bush; his decision was influenced by the Pope in a meeting in 2001) and even more wrong to ban human cloning. What a waste of time. Technology isn't even near the point where it is possible to create a customized human. And scientists who work in this field generally hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. Many believe it would be foolish to clone a human now since a human cloned now would result in a creature with so many flaws.

*gasping for mental air*

It's just wrong to condemn that which isn't fully understood. A useful analogy would be: condemning cloning and stem cell research as "evil" is equivalent to the Church's ancient position on the shape of Earth ("the Earth is flat. You'll fall off the edge") and the Sun ("the Earth is the center of all things").

InI: The Overpopulation Quiz. Take it, if you dare.

quote:

---

Metahuman, I have been attending science classes of highly renouned schools for
some time now, and your arguments are so obvious that I would love hearing what YOU can add to the sauce,
but I guess I'll never have that chance. I can cope with that.

---

It's too bad you're not attending English classes.

quote:

---

I live in a country where abusive medication, and an excessively high quality of medical structures, has led
to demographic problems: Switzerland is "too old".

---

Irrelevant... unless this is to point out that all of your opinions are influenced by drugs.

quote:

---

I have been attending sociology classes where the points you just raised have been discussed quite a few times:
your assertion that I have not read enough about the topic is... predictable: after all, you know it all, don't you?

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

This said, the debate is still in progress, and the future, still hypothetic, but most scientists, teachers,
etc.. in my country agree to define a "treshold" of population that would induce risks for the whole
mankind.

---

Start reading the literature on overpopulation.

quote:

---

If science isn't enough, common sense shows to me that high concentrations of population induce
high criminality, and whatever can be gathered under the label "urban madness": think LA or New York for a second.

---

Don't comment on subjects that are beyond your understanding. Instead take the time to learn why such events like the L.A. Riots occurred. In most cases, mob violence is caused by governmental failure not population growth.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

That's the position of most ethical scientists in the field. "We have to know it is safe before we take such an action."

By the way, InI, it is irrelevant that you've attended science classes at celebrated schools. I take these claims with a grain of salt. Your knowledge of the subject should be apparent in the content of your writing. For example, if I were to say, "I am trustworthy," am I really trustworthy? No. Anyone who justifies their position by acclaiming themselves is not confident in their abilities and is thus susceptible to fault. I would provide a quote from one of my marketing books, but I gave the book to my dad.

I highly recommend What Clients Love: A Field Guide to Growing Your Business by Harry Beckwith.

There's few good reasons to be humble when idiots continue to bumble.

It appears you still haven't taken the overpopulation quiz. Still refusing to read? That's unfortunate.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-16-2004).]

metahuman: I don't have a definitive opinion about human cloning. And honestly I think we'll do that someday or another. But I still wonder which valid reasons could lead us to clone a complete human being.

Cloning stem cells is obviously is a great thing. But we need to educate the people to remove the holywood-esque idea that they could fully clone someone with its body and mind. BTW, someone should talk about that to the RAELians.

You're right, regarding the questions and life of a clone. Apart the high medical environment surrounding the first clones, they'll live their life like everybody else. Nonetheless it won't be easy to live with some doubts about the reason of their birth. But can we judge if it's easier to live with the interogations of a "normal" person, an adopted children, a cloned children ... certainly not.

Your speech about improved clones sounds great, but it's also a little scary to think of the possible ( and inevitable ) abuses of it. Think about insurance companies using personnal medical informations, or companies refusing to engage someone because he/she is not improved, or much much worst to eugenism. As you said, those improvements ( at least some of them ) can be done to the original persons thanks to stem cells so what would be the user of "improved" clones. And why should we "improve" ourself beyond the cure of lethal diseases ? Won't bring more severe/resistant diseases and viri like the systematic use of antibiotic do ?

It's worth watching GATTACA again. Be it only to see Uma Thurman



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-16-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

As long as this thread can go back to what it was meant to be,
The purpose of this thread was to intitate discussion of realistic cloning. However, you decided to troll and run your mouth off.

and for the sake of teaching you how common you are and that your are insignificant,
As if your own words weren't enough to convince you that you are a hypocrite. Talking down to others isn't going to help your credibility.

despite your excessive self esteem,
Thanks. [ self-esteem: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect (WordNet) ]

ok I'll take the challenge, but instead of taking your biased resources as references,
I'll just take the time to use my own references and rehearse.
Instead of broadening your perspective, you would prefer to remain ignorant and bigoted? Yes, your personality is quite common and disgusting.

Forum Etiquette Reminder.
Could we please avoid personnal rants here.

quote:

---

And if you don't know of the problems caused by Christianity, then I am reasonably certain you do not want to hear what they are.

---

You really don't know me very well, do you? I am interested to know more about your problem with Xianity. Perhaps a new thread on that is in order?

[edit]

Forgot to address this:

By your "correct" figures about the religions of S. Korea you have 49% Buddhist and 34.7 + 13.0 = 47.7% Xian. How does this explain why S. Korea doesn't have this problem with Xianity as you say? That's a lot of Xians if we're talking half of the religious population.

[/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-16-2004).]

Bugimus: I don't have a problem with Christianity. I have problems with Christians. I'm saying that Christianity causes problems. Why do I need to mention what problems these are? The problems are apparent if you read the news without thinking, "What would Jesus think?"

As for my "correct" statistics, well, my statistics are correct as they come from South Korea (primary source). Also, the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church differ greatly and are opposing religions. On a technical level, they can be grouped together as members of the Christian Church, but their worldview still differs. The worldview is what is important here.

Bring your eyes to this line: "Religious people / Total population: 53.6%"

That means only 53.6% of the population of South Korea are religious (of a religion). That means 49% of that 53.6% are Buddhists. 34.7% of 53.6% are Protestants. 13% of 53.6% are Catholic. 46.4% are nontheists which is more powerful group than that of the 53.6% considering South Korean culture. Compare that to the US: over 83% of Americans are Christians (that believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus). Because American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical, Christians are more likely to prejudge that which is unknown to them. (Don't deny it.) This is also true of nontheists but we're not discussing that. The ban of stem cell research was Christianity-influenced (the Pope met with Bush in 2001 and told him stem cell research is evil and should be banned). However, South Korea does not have this problem with Christianity since Christians hold little governmental power. Scientific research like stem cell research are allowed to proceed more quickly because there is less debate, if no debate at all, and they don't have born-again Christians like Bush for a dictator banning all the things that could really improve the quality of life worldwide.

i think u guys are missing the controversey here - the harvesting of stem cells is where the real debate is at.
the stem cells that were cloned were removed originally from donated fertilised human embryos - at one stage destined to be implanted into a human womb and born. these are potential human lives. the process of harvesting stem cells requires removal of certain (stem) cells from the embryo, destroying the embryo in the process. the harvested stem cell is then cloned to reproduce it in numbers that actually might be useful.
in the article metahuman linked to it claims:

"of the 30 blastocysts cultured, only one yielded a cell line of ESCs. The team cannot explain this low efficiency, though they speculate that perhaps many of the failed embryos had chromosomal abnormalities...."

this means that of the thirty embryos used, only one yielded viable stem cells. that means thirty potential human lives were destryed for research...

the arguments
1. are embryos alive, should they be afforded the same rights as a developed human? after all a couple of weeks and the embryo is a baby?
2. when does life start?
3. should we be destroy a life to prolong another?
4. many excess embryos exist in cold storage (excess from the invitrofertilisation process or 'test tube babies' process) - should these embryos be harvested for stem cells - they will most likely be destroyed eventually anyway
there are more but its gettin late....

...Zzzzzz.........

I remember discussing human cloning in an earlier thread - and as I remember, I said that it would happen, if not in America, or Europe, then somewhere else. So banning it, or attempting to prevent it in certain countries, was counterproductive (IMHO).

I prefer the approach of guiding such technologies, than banning such, and letting someone else gain the forefront in scientific knowledge. The future of cloning is open - how it will be used, for what purposes, etc. But that there is a future (for cloning), can be no doubt now. Sort of like Pandora's Box - it's out now. It is when one has the forefront, that one can then dictate how such technology gets put to use, for example. This does not mean that such will occur, just that it is possible.

I personally don't like having to play catch up. I do tend to wonder, where this will lead, and what will come out of it.

I understand wanting to clone like organs...you know, to help people and stuff, but I don't get why you would want to clone humans. I mean, what is the point anyways....it's not like cloning a whole human can help a lot of people anyways....I think it is just a waste of money...

read the paper and would like some clarification on the process...

quote:

---

For their experiments, the Korean scientists used 242 eggs donated from 16 healthy women. Each woman was the donor of both the egg and the cell from which the nucleus was taken, before being placed into the egg.

---

question... what nucleus of which cell? eggs don't have nuclei unless they are fertilized

on a tangent: i can understand referring to LA and NY as examples of "urban madness," but not high criminality. Detroit has that dubious honor in america