Human clones doable now.

[Bill Phil]

6 hours ago, KSK said:

I'm curious but short of 'lots of humans' being 'almost complete extinction', why would this be a good thing? Presumably whatever caused such a dramatic population crash wouldn't exactly be a conducive environment for suddenly throwing a lot more humans into, whether by cloning or more traditional methods.

It's more about keeping the species alive through any cataclysm.

[r4pt0r]

15 minutes ago, Vaporo said:

I'm almost certain that 99 percent of churches, and not just Christian churches, would react instantly with "YES! CLONES ARE HUMANS!" I know I certainly would.

 

EDIT: I think we're getting dangerously close to starting a religious debate, here. We should probably stop this particular line of conversation here and move back closer to the original topic.

Interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_cloning


Yes i agree though, moving on.

[Vaporo]

 

8 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

I've never made a connection between the Namah site and WMS.

No offense, but yes, you did. Or at least unintentionally implied it.

13 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

The one site, the first on genetic memory, is from a reputable medical journal (Wisconsin Medical Society)...

 

• http://www.namahjournal.com/doc/Actual/Memory-transference-in-organ-transplant-recipients-vol-19-iss-1.html

The source you just posted seems much more credible than the Namah site (why didn't you just link it in the first place?), But I will remain skeptical until I see more studies.

[Kryten]

Given nobody's managed to clone any kind of primate beyond the embryonic level, this seems very premature...

[Hcube]

14 hours ago, SomeGuy123 said:

So, have they fixed the telomere and other issues?  It's been almost 20 years since the first cloned sheep, surely the techniques have gotten more reliable.

What's wrong with the telomeres ?

[Exoscientist]

17 hours ago, Darnok said:

The island (2005)

In first place people should think about "what is difference between human being and sack of body parts?"If you answered: sack of body parts is made in lab, then think about in-vitro

I am against both.

 Yes, "The Island" was a remake of "The Clonus Horror".

Another problem is who gets cloned? Cloning Albert Einstein might be great, but how many? What if someone scratched some skin cells from Michael Jordan in order to clone him?
And suppose someone wanted to clone Hitler or Stalin?

Bob Clark

[More Boosters]

Yes, please.

[Vaporo]

9 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 Yes, "The Island" was a remake of "The Clonus Horror".

Another problem is who gets cloned? Cloning Albert Einstein might be great, but how many? What if someone scratched some skin cells from Michael Jordan in order to clone him?
And suppose someone wanted to clone Hitler or Stalin?

Bob Clark

The thing is, we're not just shape by our DNA, but our environment as well. Sure, the Einstein clones might be pretty smart, but they might never become as fascinated with that toy magnet as the original Einstein was. Perhaps Einstein is genetically a lazy bum, and only became a great scientist because some specific series of events inspired him to. Sure, you could train them to be scientists, but that immediately brings into question whether their rights as humans to find their own destiny is being violated. Same thing with the Hitler or Stalin clones. Perhaps they were only the horrible dictators they were because of events in their lives, not genetic identity. Remember, Hitler was an artist before he was head of the Nazi party. Perhaps if he had been successful there he would have turned out quite differently.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Vaporo

[KSK]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

It's more about keeping the species alive through any cataclysm.

I would have thought that the good old-fashioned way of making babies would be adequate for that, possibly backed up with some kind of assisted reproductive technology. No need for full on cloning.

[KSK]

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Sleep is a vital part of life. I need between 5 and 6 a night to function the next day. All's good!

I've never made a connection between the Namah site and WMS.

This site quotes from Pearsall but also includes others: http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science/2012/04/inherited-memories-in-organ-transplant-recipients-2006675.html Personally, I think there is a reason why his and other research like what he is doing is being kept out of the normal medical journals. There is a perceived fear that it would destroy the implant business. In reality, I do not think there has been enough research on this for the simple reason the medical community has labeled it "off limits" much the way academia has labeled UFO encounters off limits for authoritative academic research. While we do know a lot about the human body, there is still an awful lot that we do not know or do not even have a decent working theory about. Again, I believe this is such an area.

 

With respect, I disagree. In general, organ donation and the ethics surrounding donation are taken extremely seriously. If transplant memories were a thing, I have no doubt that they would be taken into account as well. Saying that 'the medical community' - which is hardly a homogenous body in the first place - is suppressing this research because of a perceived fear to the transplant business (whatever that might be) is a pretty serious allegation.

I read the linked article and found it less than convincing although I'm not sure how much of that was due to it being a layman's article about a reputable hypothesis or a deliberately woolly article about an implausible hypothesis. To its credit though, it did offer alternative explanations which I found far more convincing, particularly the notion that some of the changes ascribed to 'cellular memory' could have been a side-effect of immunosuppressive drugs.

I would also add that any sort of transplant is going to be a pretty big physiological upheaval and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if that led to the observed changes in dietary preferences. As a very loose analogy, bizarre food cravings are often associated with pregnancy.

[adsii1970]

@KSK:

I have an aunt that is actually in the cornea transplant business and during a family discussion on this very topic, she connected the medical community's resistance to research into this for one reason - there are already those who are hesitant to participate in the organ donor program out of fear of being prematurely pronounced "dead" so that organs may be harvested. All it takes is a Google search and this fear is played out in some developing nations but with no real basis in Western Europe or North America, yet in both areas, there are still people that believe it to be true.

It is the same here, if, by chance, cellular memory is possible (as I am still on the fence about it), and IF more people can provide documented proof that it can happen, then watch the organ transplant industry and service providers suffer even a greater hit. How many recipients would want a kidney or liver of someone that had a criminal record if cellular memory is true? How many would want to risk it? I was simply trying to point out that if it happens on a cellular level - or even possibly could - then a clone of a human might have the memories of the person cloned. Should we pass laws to prohibit the production of certain clones, such as Adolph Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot? Should we limit human cloning only to living subjects? The ethical and moral questions/issues must be addressed.

Again, just because we have the capability does not mean it should ever be done.

[Randazzo]

I'd be willing to stretch so far as to accept the dubious concept of "genetic memory" as it might extend to instincts, but I don't believe it is possible for biological tissue from an implanted organ to create engrams in the recipients brain.

[RainDreamer]

I know some people would make clones as body doubles, or just...you know, fulfilling the fantasy of doing it with yourself.

If taken to a logical conclusion where human clones are consider human with full rights, then we will have certain laws and legal recognition in place, say considering the original and the clone as a unit similar to a married couple (maybe) and get taxed and such accordingly.

But there will also be much more changes in other aspects, like crime solving where the excuse "my evil clone did it" is suddenly possible. Perhaps a suspect will have them and all of their clones put to surveillances. All cloning will require registration so the government can keep track of the population as well as accountability for clones.

Then there will be clones made underground outside of the reach of the laws by criminal organizations, and they can be made to be disposable assassins, or as goods traded for organs, or perhaps labours (of all variety, if you know what I mean). 

Will a human identity then reduced to only their own DNA? and DNA holders must be accountable for all things other holders of the same DNA did.

Exploring these kinds of things will give us material to write several novels...

[Scotius]

OK, let's consider body part cloning\full body cloning from the practical view. Why would anyone want to waste time, money and resources to clone entire human body (sans brain, let's say for safety)? Aside from internal organs, skin, veins etc. our bodies contain a lot of tissues that are useless for transplanting. Why grew all of it, when you can grow a heart or a kidney in a jar without the hassle?

[r4pt0r]

Im not sure, but I think its because its easier to grow an apple tree to get apples than it is to just grow an apple? Those parts need "hosts" to grow on, and a same species host would be most beneficial I would think. Though we have had success with growing human ears on the backs of mice, so im not sure...

also about cloning, I honestly(100% true) do a google news search of "cloning" every few weeks to get an update on if anyone is progressing with bringing back a mammoth. No luck yet

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Kryten]

12 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

I know some people would make clones as body doubles, or just...you know, fulfilling the fantasy of doing it with yourself.

If taken to a logical conclusion where human clones are consider human with full rights, then we will have certain laws and legal recognition in place, say considering the original and the clone as a unit similar to a married couple (maybe) and get taxed and such accordingly.

But there will also be much more changes in other aspects, like crime solving where the excuse "my evil clone did it" is suddenly possible. Perhaps a suspect will have them and all of their clones put to surveillances. All cloning will require registration so the government can keep track of the population as well as accountability for clones.

Then there will be clones made underground outside of the reach of the laws by criminal organizations, and they can be made to be disposable assassins, or as goods traded for organs, or perhaps labours (of all variety, if you know what I mean). 

Will a human identity then reduced to only their own DNA? and DNA holders must be accountable for all things other holders of the same DNA did.

Exploring these kinds of things will give us material to write several novels...

None of this has anything remotely to do with the actual scientific concept of human cloning. This isn't star wars, cloning doesn't give you an adult perfect copy.

[Randazzo]

1 minute ago, r4pt0r said:

Im not sure, but I think its because its easier to grow an apple tree to get apples than it is to just grow an apple? Those parts need "hosts" to grow on, and a same species host would be most beneficial I would think. Though we have had success with growing human ears on the backs of mice, so im not sure...

Honestly(100% true) I do a google news search of "cloning" every few weeks to get an update on if anyone is progressing with bringing back a mammoth. No luck yet

 

T-Rex in San Diego by 2025.

Early on, after the sheep, I assumed we'd be seeing clones of extinct species showing up in Zoo displays and such. Naturally it would have to be species for which we have biological samples somewhere.

Preferably not critters that could lay waste to large portions of a city.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Not entirely sure I understand the point of cloning humans.

[adsii1970]

5 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

T-Rex in San Diego by 2025.

Early on, after the sheep, I assumed we'd be seeing clones of extinct species showing up in Zoo displays and such. Naturally it would have to be species for which we have biological samples somewhere.

Preferably not critters that could lay waste to large portions of a city.

 

Yeah, but you know, as well as I do, there's always a person out there who will think to themselves, "oh, just ONE velociraptor, and we'll put it out before it gets lethal..." In the words of Ian Malcolm, "that's always how it starts - oohing and ahhhing. Then there's the screaming and running..."

5 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Not entirely sure I understand the point of cloning humans.

The thread here seems focused on "because we can" and for making spare parts.

[KerikBalm]

I'm sure we could if the same effort was put into it as cloning other animals... but we're not exactl going to start trying to clone and implant human embryos (which still need a human womb.. ie a surrogate mother) at the same rate we'd do it in mice...

What I find far more interesting is human genetic modification... which does seem to be held back by moral worries.

I wish someone had added the genes for photolyase to my genome!!! And while we're at it, lets throw in another opsin so we have tetrachromatic vision... in addition to extra copies of tumor suppressor genes/fixing genetic defects (stuff that is a clear defect, not just a "undesireable trait" that may be associated with a certain race... which is where a lot of the moral fear comes from)

[Darnok]

20 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

A person has experiences. The experiences are part of what determines our personality. If the clones have experiences, then they are people.

Identical twins have similar extremely similar DNA, but different experiences.

What makes you human is your DNA, not your age or your experience. You are human being since your DNA code was established in first cell of your body

 

[KSK]

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

@KSK:

I have an aunt that is actually in the cornea transplant business and during a family discussion on this very topic, she connected the medical community's resistance to research into this for one reason - there are already those who are hesitant to participate in the organ donor program out of fear of being prematurely pronounced "dead" so that organs may be harvested. All it takes is a Google search and this fear is played out in some developing nations but with no real basis in Western Europe or North America, yet in both areas, there are still people that believe it to be true.

It is the same here, if, by chance, cellular memory is possible (as I am still on the fence about it), and IF more people can provide documented proof that it can happen, then watch the organ transplant industry and service providers suffer even a greater hit. How many recipients would want a kidney or liver of someone that had a criminal record if cellular memory is true? How many would want to risk it? I was simply trying to point out that if it happens on a cellular level - or even possibly could - then a clone of a human might have the memories of the person cloned. Should we pass laws to prohibit the production of certain clones, such as Adolph Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot? Should we limit human cloning only to living subjects? The ethical and moral questions/issues must be addressed.

Again, just because we have the capability does not mean it should ever be done.

I have the utmost respect for your aunt and anyone else who works in the organ donation and transplant field and I think it's disgusting that we live in a world where people even need to think that they might have to be frightened about being pronounced 'dead' as you describe. With that said, I still think it's a mistake to conflate 'the medical community' with 'the organ donation and transplant' community. I expect I could speak to a doctor, to a medical researcher at a university or to a CEO of a pharma company (all arguably members of the medical community) and they would all give me different reasons why cellular memory research has been overlooked and probably not because of its potential impact on organ transplants.

Regarding ethical and moral questions, I personally think that cellular memory is sufficiently unlikely that its ethical and moral implications don't need to be seriously addressed. However, if I am wrong then I entirely take your point and in fact, recipients worrying about accepting organs from criminals would be the least of our problems. Sadly, I think it's far more likely that people would be concerned about accepting organs from gay/black/male/female/old/yellow/pick-your-prejudice people.

One question to finish off. Are there any documented cases of people losing memories after having organs (or parts of organs) removed? That would certainly lend some credence to the cellular memory idea.

[adsii1970]

3 minutes ago, KSK said:

One question to finish off. Are there any documented cases of people losing memories after having organs (or parts of organs) removed? That would certainly lend some credence to the cellular memory idea.

No, there would essentially be no memory loss on for a live donor or for the replaced organ for the simple reason is that the theory is memories are duplicated in the brain and in the cells of the organs. Again, in theory.

[Bill Phil]

4 hours ago, KSK said:

I would have thought that the good old-fashioned way of making babies would be adequate for that, possibly backed up with some kind of assisted reproductive technology. No need for full on cloning.

Except when there's only one human left... It's unlikely. Very unlikely. But it still can happen. And it's more for speeding it up. 

[razark]

2 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

Then there will be clones made underground outside of the reach of the laws by criminal organizations, and they can be made to be disposable assassins, or as goods traded for organs, or perhaps labours (of all variety, if you know what I mean).

If you want organs, wouldn't it be easier to just go harvest them from people that already exist?  For laborers, it would also be more effective to just kidnap people that already exist.  The overhead of finding women to carry the clones to term, and then the cost of feeding and raising the children until they're old enough to be useful workers would be no better than doing it the old fashioned way, but you'd also have the costs of the cloning.  Then you have to wait 10+ years until you can actually get work out of them?  Why bother?  That also goes for your "disposable" assassins.  That's a lot of time and effort to put into something that you're just going to throw away.  What exactly makes it disposable in the first place?  The clone you raise to be an assassin is going to go through life like a non-clone, building emotional connections to other people.  By the time it reaches an age sufficient to carry out its mission, it's going to be a member of the community, no different from you selecting a random member of your vast criminal empire and saying "you're disposable now".