First cloned primate

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Monkey see, Monkey two.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

A link would help 

[Nearly Sane]

A link would help 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42809445

[floo]

Human cloning, which is likely one day, is worrying. Even if it is intended for the best of reasons, in the wrong hands it would be catastrophic. Hitler, for instance, would probably have been thrilled to have clones of himself and like minded psychos.

[Nearly Sane]

Human cloning, which is likely one day, is worrying. Even if it is intended for the best of reasons, in the wrong hands it would be catastrophic. Hitler, for instance, would probably have been thrilled to have clones of himself and like minded psychos.

Put The Boys From Brazil down

[Sassy]

It is frightening to think of someone cloned. But cloning the flesh would not bring the Spirit/Soul back.
The most frightening aspect is that they would lose the humane side of their nature and be born void of conscience and proper human feeling.
Worrying? Maybe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Identical twins are natural clones.
I believe artificial clones need a jolt of electricity to get the first cell going. Just like Frankenstein.

[floo]

Put The Boys From Brazil down

Ehhhhhhh?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42809445

Thanks 

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Ehhhhhhh?

It is a film

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(film)

[floo]

It is a film

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(film)

Right!

[Nearly Sane]

It is a film

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(film)

And a book - one of the forgotten writers, Ira Levin


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(novel)

[Walter]

It is frightening to think of someone cloned. But cloning the flesh would not bring the Spirit/Soul back.
The most frightening aspect is that they would lose the humane side of their nature and be born void of conscience and proper human feeling.
Worrying? Maybe?

id forgotten you were an expert in this field . Thanks for the information

[ProfessorDavey]

Human cloning, which is likely one day, is worrying. Even if it is intended for the best of reasons, in the wrong hands it would be catastrophic. Hitler, for instance, would probably have been thrilled to have clones of himself and like minded psychos.

Why would a cloned person necessarily think like the person from which they were cloned.

Likely they would be brought up years later and in a different environment. I think you are over-egging 'nature' and under-egging 'nurture'. Even our natural clones (identical twins) who are normally brought up in the same environment and, of course, at the same time aren't identical in terms of their thoughts, desires etc.

You mention Hitler - he never had the technology to clone, but he recognised a much more powerful force (one recognised by autocrats over the centuries) - that of indoctrination. If you want people to think and act like you, control their upbringing and education. That's going to far more likely to succeed than cloning.

[ProfessorDavey]

Identical twins are natural clones.
I believe artificial clones need a jolt of electricity to get the first cell going. Just like Frankenstein.

You do realise that Frankenstein is a work of fiction, don't you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do realise that Frankenstein is a work of fiction, don't you.

If that's so Davey how come I converse with antiitheists with flat heads, bolts in their necks and badly cut suits, daily, on this forum?

[ProfessorDavey]

If that's so Davey how come I converse with antiitheists with flat heads, bolts in their necks and badly cut suits, daily, on this forum?

You don't

And besides - how would you know - do you have a secret web-cam that somehow reveals what we all look like. That really would be creepy - more so than a fictional monster or a cloned primate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't

And besides - how would you know

Easy.........hastily stitched and bolted together responses coupled with a complete lack of aesthetic sense.

[Harrowby Hall]

Put The Boys From Brazil down

Isn't Never Let Me Go, by our latest Nobel laureate, a more relevant warning?

[ProfessorDavey]

Isn't Never Let Me Go, by our latest Nobel laureate, a more relevant warning?

Yes, although easily batted away. Justification along those lines requires society to accept that clones are somehow not fully human in a manner that a non clone isn't. Or perhaps more specifically that the clone is not considered to be a individual, in themselves, but somehow really part of the 'parent'. A simple glance at natural clones (identical twins) allays that view - we do not consider identical twins to be one person - we consider them to be two distinct individuals, albeit with the same genetic makeup.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, although easily batted away. Justification along those lines requires society to accept that clones are somehow not fully human in a manner that a non clone isn't. Or perhaps more specifically that the clone is not considered to be a individual, in themselves, but somehow really part of the 'parent'. A simple glance at natural clones (identical twins) allays that view - we do not consider identical twins to be one person - we consider them to be two distinct individuals, albeit with the same genetic makeup.

Agree.
The trouble with cloning though is always going to revolve around a perceived close proximity to eugenics.
For instance, if an Einstein or a David Davis can be produced naturally, there must be a special eugenicky reason for cloning.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree.
The trouble with cloning though is always going to revolve around a perceived close proximity to eugenics.
For instance, if an Einstein or a David Davis can be produced naturally, there must be a special eugenicky reason for cloning.

Indeed - cloning is considered taboo in a manner that most technologies aren't.

But that is fairly lazy thinking - I think we should consider the actual ethical issues of cloning rather than lazily leaning on fears of eugenics, which frankly is already possible and have been attempted (and largely been demonstrated to fail, due to weakening of the gene pool plus also the rather inconvenient matter for eugenicists that nurture is just as important as nature, if not more so).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed - cloning is considered taboo in a manner that most technologies aren't.

But that is fairly lazy thinking - I think we should consider the actual ethical issues of cloning rather than lazily leaning on fears of eugenics, which frankly is already possible and have been attempted (and largely been demonstrated to fail, due to weakening of the gene pool plus also the rather inconvenient matter for eugenicists that nurture is just as important as nature, if not more so).

I disagree, natural means of reproduction seem adequate. Artificial means are technically easier at present and only as difficult as cloning if cloning can be pulled off.

Cloning demands a fundamental shift in human thinking that was not true of artificial methods to date. It is a form of Eugenics because given the success of natural and artificial fertility there must be a reason for a genomic blueprint to be exactly or near replicated.

You seem to be reflecting an attitude of ''if it can be done it should be done.'' Any better reasons?

[ProfessorDavey]

I disagree, natural means of reproduction seem adequate. Artificial means are technically easier at present and only as difficult as cloning if cloning can be pulled off.

Artificial means are not technically easier - selective breeding to generate specific traits has been used successfully for hundreds and thousands of years. The current cloning technique has only been around for 20 years and this is the first successful example in a primate - one of the reasons being that the technique is hugely species-dependent for reasons that scientists don't really understand. And all cloning does is replicate the genetic make-up of an existing organism (the donor of the nucleus) - of itself it cannot be used to enhance any traits, so is effectively useless as a eugenic tool.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Artificial means are not technically easier - selective breeding to generate specific traits has been used successfully for hundreds and thousands of years. The current cloning technique has only been around for 20 years and this is the first successful example in a primate - one of the reasons being that the technique is hugely species-dependent for reasons that scientists don't really understand. And all cloning does is replicate the genetic make-up of an existing organism (the donor of the nucleus) - of itself it cannot be used to enhance any traits, so is effectively useless as a eugenic tool.

Sorry I meant artificial fertility methods are easier than cloning.
The main point is that the fertility question is answered by artificial and natural methods and cloning is therefore something apart.

To say that cloning is useless as a eugenic tool is nonsense since it must be done to replicate and perpetuate a desired organism based on genes and characteristics. The ultimate in Eugenics I would have thought.