Human clones doable now.

[Hcube]

It looks like many people in this thread are mistaking "same genome" and "self-copy-that-can-be-genetically-manipulated-to-do-weird-things"

A clone of someone is just his twin ! He still has to be raised, educated... It's a normal person

Also, everyone talking about "yeah but you could illegally make clones to have them work as slaves or killers etc...          --->works with non-cloned people too (and happens everyday). This is not the point of cloning

Same for " reviving human race after everyone died"-->a clone doesn't magically come out from a machine ! It's exactly like a normal pregnancy and birth...

And finally you can't simply stick some genes into a genome and except the transgenic individual to have new, perfectly working capacities ! Actually, transgenesis is more about shutting down genes than about putting new ones in 

[Bill Phil]

Reviving the human race isn't magic. It's assisted population recovery, with a varied gene pool stored digitally. And if you don't want clones, a genetic recombination algorithm can be created.

It would use an artificial womb. That and the other things with cloning. And there's no reason to have the clone be birthed after 9 months. If tech is advanced enough, they can grow up in a digital reality, while their bodies grow up IRL, while still in the artificial womb. Although that is way beyond our tech.

Its not the best solution, since it's unlikely every one will die anytime soon, but it's not an impossibility to do it. 

Its not insta-human in a can. It's a process that requires power, time, and other resources.

This might, in a few thousand years, be the main method of human reproduction. It's not guaranteed though, not at all.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

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

 

DNA doesn't mean all that much at all.

What about a robot like in Asimov's books. Would one be a human if they:

A: believed themselves to be one

B: had human experiences

C: did everything else a human does

Yes, it is human. And it has no DNA. It's human because it experienced being a human and nothing else.

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

DNA doesn't mean all that much at all.

What about a robot like in Asimov's books. Would one be a human if they:

A: believed themselves to be one

B: had human experiences

C: did everything else a human does

Yes, it is human. And it has no DNA. It's human because it experienced being a human and nothing else.

DNA is natural, while Asimov rules are artificial human invention.

[Bill Phil]

14 minutes ago, Darnok said:

DNA is natural, while Asimov rules are artificial human invention.

Not his rules. It has more to do with your mind. If a robot has no real differences to a human, except no DNA, but is in every other way a human, is it a human? Yes. It is. That's it.

DNA serves as a body plan, instructions.

[Vaporo]

35 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Not his rules. It has more to do with your mind. If a robot has no real differences to a human, except no DNA, but is in every other way a human, is it a human? Yes. It is. That's it.

DNA serves as a body plan, instructions.

Perhaps a better word here would be "person." If we met an alien race, I'd consider the aliens people, but not humans.

[Bill Phil]

25 minutes ago, Vaporo said:

Perhaps a better word here would be "person." If we met an alien race, I'd consider the aliens people, but not humans.

I was referring specifically to humaniform robots.

[Vaporo]

13 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

I was referring specifically to humaniform robots.

Yes. Whether they're "human" is arguable, whether they're "people" is less so.

[Bill Phil]

5 minutes ago, Vaporo said:

Yes. Whether they're "human" is arguable, whether they're "people" is less so.

Well, as long as clones can reproduce and produce fertile offspring, they are scientifically human. They also are separate entities, with their own thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experience. Therefore, they are not the same person as the cloned one is.

[cubinator]

I think that whether or not cloning is a good idea (it probably isn't in today's global society), someday, somewhere, somebody is going to do it.

[Vaporo]

18 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Well, as long as clones can reproduce and produce fertile offspring, they are scientifically human. They also are separate entities, with their own thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experience. Therefore, they are not the same person as the cloned one is.

Oh. I though that we were still talking about robots. Yeah, clones would be, by definition, human. Yes.

[RainDreamer]

So, assuming cloning human become possible, and the technology becoming cheap and widely available...would human DNA become a legally recognized property then?

I mean, what if people steal DNA material from famous people like celebrities, then clone them so they have their own celebrity-look-a-like babies, would that be consider theft of genetic material?

Some crazed fans of some celebrity might claim that the baby is the celebrity's child, and demand child support. How will they disprove that it isn't their illegitimate child?

Also, that might still make crime scene DNA evidences a bit unreliable if people can clone skin and hair even easier than now.

 

But maybe we will never get cloning tech to be that cheap and widely available.

[Hcube]

1 hour ago, RainDreamer said:

Also, that might still make crime scene DNA evidences a bit unreliable if people can clone skin and hair even easier than now.

I doubt cloning a full human being, with lab manipulations, finding a woman to develop it, waiting nine months and then get some hair to put on the crime scene and get rid of the clone would be handy.

 Yes if someone's DNA is found on a crime scene, it could aswell be his clone, but that's already the same with twins 

7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

DNA serves as a body plan, instructions.

It's actually much more than that, though.

[Darnok]

9 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Not his rules. It has more to do with your mind.

It is way Asimov interpreted human mind, not some universal rule. It may change if we understand our minds better, we can even drop this as very wrong interpretation of human mind in future.

 

Quote

If a robot has no real differences to a human, except no DNA, but is in every other way a human, is it a human? Yes. It is. That's it.

What? Then he would be talking robot, not human or not even intelligent being. What makes us very different from robots is evolution. Robots won't ever evolve because they have to be created as intelligent to start improving their "production line".

 

Quote

DNA serves as a body plan, instructions.

And it serves evolution That is why any DNA modifications, cloning and GMO are crimes against humanity.

 

[r4pt0r]

29 minutes ago, Darnok said:

DNA modifications, cloning and GMO are crimes against humanity.

 

No. You are wrong. Genetically modified organisms are all around us. Selective breeding has genetically modified tomatoes from bitter tough golfballs, into plump delicious baseballs, all before the advent of genetic manumpulation using genes. Today we have the advantage of skipping years and years of breeding, and we can just drop in the genes we want. Crops with bigger yields, pest resistance, ect.

There is literally nothing wrong with any of that.

Edited December 10, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Darnok]

34 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:

No. You are wrong. Genetically modified organisms are all around us. Selective breeding has genetically modified tomatoes from bitter tough golfballs, into plump delicious baseballs, all before the advent of genetic manumpulation using genes. Today we have the advantage of skipping years and years of breeding, and we can just drop in the genes we want. Crops with bigger yields, pest resistance, ect.

There is literally nothing wrong with any of that.

Selective breeding != DNA modification

Selective breeding it is just manual driven evolution. While GMO is jumping on different evolution branch skipping many evolutionary steps.

And we even see that selective breeding is failing, because most of crops needs lots of chemical protection against disease that would never occur in natural environment, because such disease would simply kill entire evolutionary branch of plant.

[r4pt0r]

9 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Selective breeding != DNA modification

Selective breeding it is just manual driven evolution. While GMO is jumping on different evolution branch skipping many evolutionary steps.

And we even see that selective breeding is failing, because most of crops needs lots of chemical protection against disease that would never occur in natural environment, because such disease would simply kill entire evolutionary branch of plant.

I know that "Selective breeding != DNA modification"

However Selective breeding is humans using evolution to carry genes we find favorable forward. We want bigger chickens? only breed the ones that grow particularly large. As we both said GM just lets us skip many steps to add genes we want, or add genes that would not be possible in nature.


My problem is you imply that GMOs are crimes against humanity, when there is nothing wrong with them.

[Darnok]

7 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:

I know that "Selective breeding != DNA modification"

However Selective breeding is humans using evolution to carry genes we find favorable forward. We want bigger chickens? only breed the ones that grow particularly large. As we both said GM just lets us skip many steps to add genes we want, or add genes that would not be possible in nature.


 

Using natural mechanics to make "bigger chicken" maybe isn't great idea, but it is better than changing part of DNA manually.

 

Quote

My problem is you imply that GMOs are crimes against humanity, when there is nothing wrong with them.

Or maybe you just don't see what is wrong with them? I read that Monsanto was sued for "crimes against humanity"... I only hope it is not one more false flag sue to avoid in future real accusations. And in case Monsanto wins people will talk that GMO is fine, because they won in court.

Just like vaccine-companies made with "autism accusation" (they won) and now everyone thinks that since vaccine doesn't cause autism it is safe

 

[steve_v]

No, no, I really can't resist.

25 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Using natural mechanics to make "bigger chicken" maybe isn't great idea

Why not, we've been doing it for centuries. Where do you think domestic dogs came from? There are numerous examples of how this practice has benefited our species, and arguably our current civilisation wouldn't exist without it.

25 minutes ago, Darnok said:

it is better than changing part of DNA manually.

Again, why?

25 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Or maybe you just don't see what is wrong with them?

Got any real science to back up your opinions there? Please do post your statistically significant evidence that GMOs and vaccines are unsafe, and that the risks of such outweigh the benefits.
Vaccines in particular have saved countless lives, and eradicated several lethal and highly contagious diseases. I sure don't want polio, and if your lack of vaccination causes anyone I know to catch it, or anything else for that matter, I will be a mite displeased to say the least.

25 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I read that Monsanto was sued for "crimes against humanity"... I only hope it is not one more false flag sue to avoid in future real accusations. And in case Monsanto wins people will talk that GMO is fine, because they won in court.

Just like vaccine-companies made with "autism accusation" (they won) and now everyone thinks that since vaccine doesn't cause autism it is safe

Arguments like this cut no ice here whatsoever, anyone can sue for just about anything.
Scientific significance == 0. Data please.

Edited December 10, 2015 by steve_v

[Darnok]

8 minutes ago, steve_v said:

No, no, I really can't resist.

Got any real science to back up your opinions there? Please do post your statistically significant evidence that GMOs and vaccines are unsafe, and that the risks of such outweigh the benefits.

You should demand science to back up from people saying that GMO is safe in first place

Are there any statistical studies on people eating GMO?

What data do you have? Does anyone checked people eating GMO on multiple disease or just one or two like cancer?

Any studies on 2nd and 3rd generation of people eating GMO or using vaccines?

 

Quote

Arguments like this cut no ice here whatsoever, anyone can sue for just about anything.
Scientific significance == 0. Data please.

Exactly, if you sue your self with zero evidence you are going to win for 100%. How this is going to affect public opinion about you and your product?

Abusing law is easy if you earn billion$, makes worth it and it has happened in past. Large companies hired scientists to present false data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Spacetime_Odyssey

7 "The Clean Room"

Quote

Patterson examined the levels of lead in the common environment and in deeper parts of the oceans and Antarctic ice, showing that lead had only been brought to the surface in recent times. He would discover that the higher levels of lead were from the use of tetraethyllead in leaded gasoline, despite long-established claims by Robert A. Kehoe and others that this chemical was safe. Patterson would continue to campaign against the use of lead, ultimately resulting in government-mandated restrictions on the use of lead. Tyson ends by noting that similar work by scientists continues to be used to help alert humankind to other fateful issues that can be identified by the study of nature.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Darnok

[steve_v]

33 minutes ago, Darnok said:

You should demand science to back up from people saying that GMO is safe in first place

Science can't "prove" that something doesn't exist, otherwise god would have disappeared in a puff of logic long ago. The scientific method can only test a theory against the available evidence. No evidence has, so far, been found that links GMOs to any known disease.

This doesn't mean they are 100% safe, it simply means they are not known to be unsafe - just like pretty much everything else you eat. To say otherwise requires demonstration of a causal link... If you're going to use words like "Crime against humanity" it'd better be a good solid link indeed.

Grapefruit might cause cancer, but there's no evidence to suggest it does, do you like grapefruit?

33 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Exactly, if you sue your self with zero evidence you are going to win for 100%

Smells like a conspiracy theory to me, got anything to show they did?
That something has happened before is not evidence that it's happening now. And yes, I too have seen "Cosmos" , it's a TV documentary, not a scientific journal. Though that bit is true, again it's not evidence that that's what's happening in this case.

33 minutes ago, Darnok said:

How this is going to affect public opinion about you and your product?

Do I care? If I were to get all my information from "public opinion" (or YouTube) I might end up believing all manner of bizarre things.

Anyway, enough. I'm going to sleep now.

Edited December 10, 2015 by steve_v

[r4pt0r]

56 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Any studies on 2nd and 3rd generation of people eating GMO or using vaccines?

LMAO  you are one of those "vaccines cause autism" idiots too? 

This is the "Science and Spaceflight" part of the forum. You must be looking for "Forum games", because I cannot take you seriously. Surely you have some monsanto protest you could be off doing? 

Edited December 10, 2015 by r4pt0r

[steve_v]

6 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:

LMAO  you are one of those "vaccines cause autism" idiots too?

Apparently so, and here's me staying up after my bed time arguing with a fool.
*Note to self, stop doing that - sleep deprivation might cause autism.

[Darnok]

16 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Science can't "prove" that something doesn't exist, otherwise god would have disappeared in a puff of logic long ago. The scientific method can only test a theory against the available evidence. No evidence has, so far, been found that links GMOs to any known disease.

 

Cancer is known disease http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/

 

Quote

This doesn't mean they are 100% safe, it simply means they are not known to be unsafe - just like pretty much everything else you eat. To say otherwise requires demonstration of a causal link... If you're going to use words like "Crime against humanity" it'd better be a good solid link indeed.

True, but before full-release on market it should be checked very carefully and for very long time (not just for 9 months), meanwhile you demand more scientific data from someone who is against it, than from people who released it on market. That is very wrong approach it should be opposite.

Look at wiki and history of Monsanto law suits, soon there should be this I am talking about.

 

Quote

Smells like a conspiracy theory to me, got anything to show they did?
That something has happened before is not evidence that it's happening now. And yes, I too have seen "Cosmos" , it's a TV documentary, not a scientific journal. Though that bit is true, again it's not evidence that that's what's happening in this case.

 

That is only example, if something has happened before its is not evidence it is happening now, but it may be same case.

That is why standing behind official statements and claiming something is conspiracy is pretty naive.

 

Quote

Do I care? If I were to get all my information from "public opinion" (or YouTube) I might end up believing all manner of bizarre things.

You didn't understood what I said... if company would won false-flag-accusation then one of your arguments in our discussion would be "but they won law suit, so there is no proof it is bad" - this is how winning law suit is changing public opinions and way of thinking.

 

Going back to human cloning...

Same thing is with human cloning... if it would be US or European idea people would go against, so they are (large greedy companies) doing this in proxy-China-company http://www.boyalifegroup.com/english/introduction.aspx  because Chinese can clone humans and good democratic govs can't forbid them to do so Meanwhile this is US and UK project to continue studies on cloning humans in outposts located in China, but in media they are quoting Chinese scientist.

 

[kerbiloid]

Any human is GMO: mom's "O", "GM"ed by dad. Almost 50% of genes are injected from outside, from both sides of view.
And for most of them a final is the same.