Human clones doable now.

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, r4pt0r said:

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? 

Where I said "vaccines cause autism"? I said that most people think this way: if vaccines doesn't cause autism they are 100% safe.

Those are two very different things.

 

Also calling people idiots just because they disagree with you remind me this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPMyccAPrgA

You just scored 18/10 points

[Hcube]

This is going off subject. I suggest you open a new thread or MP it.

[Pronoes]

Firs there will be clones. Then comes them wanting to sit on the bus. Then the clone revolution fighting for clone rights. Then the clones will be against cloning but want to treated as equals. Then will come rejoicing as a clone reproduces. Then someone will make a bad film about it. Then an asteroid will impact earth killing us all.

 

 

you heard it here first folks 

[r4pt0r]

32 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Where I said "vaccines cause autism"? I said that most people think this way: if vaccines doesn't cause autism they are 100% safe.

Those are two very different things.

Good point, I was speaking for you, and should not have. You still seem to imply vaccines are unsafe... Are they more or less safe than smallpox? Polio? Diphtheria? Forgive me if I am confused.

 

Quote

More than 732,000 children's lives have been saved in the past 20 years due to routine vaccinations, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, 322 million cases of kids getting sick were prevented, according to the report.  

We can move back on topic after this, I would just like this cleared up. I'd hate for someone to willfully disregard common sense....

[Bill Phil]

5 hours ago, Darnok said:

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.

 

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".

 

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

 

I have no idea what you're even talking about...

I'm not talking about Asimov! I'm saying that of we have a robot, similar to one in Asimov's story, but is in every way identical to a human ( yes, it evolves too) then it is a human.

What makes us different from robots isn't evolution. It's our mind. Robots do evolve. It's not natural, sure, but evolution algorithms can be programmed to create new programs from "genes". We evolved to create things. That's why we're building things to improve our lives. We have built robots and have always been evolving them.

No, DNA is not "serving" evolution. It's useful in it, of course, but all it is is something that randomly changes, producing variations or mutations. Which then serve evolution. But we're not a final product of evolution. We're only a part of the process.

You probably eat GMOs everyday...

[Pronoes]

Surely genetic / DNA modification IS an evolution in its own right. Things we do everyday affect our future generations evolution. Tampering with DNA is just another step.

[razark]

44 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

I'm saying that of we have a robot, similar to one in Asimov's story, but is in every way identical to a human ( yes, it evolves too) then it is a human.

If it's not a biological organism of the genus homo, it's not human.

I'm not saying an AI robot such as you discuss should not be considered a "person", or not have equivalent rights as any human.  An alien creature that is in every way identical to a human would also not be a human.  Basically, if it's not part of the genus homo, then it's not a human by definition.

Edited December 10, 2015 by razark

[Kryten]

That doesn't work too well given there's no real widely-agreed-upon definition of Homo that's less vague than 'the genus humans are in'. A cladistic approach would get you clearer results, e.g. something like 'all organisms sharing a more recent common ancestor with Homo sapiens than Pan troglodytes'.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Kryten

[razark]

I'm fine with either definition, but we can go with the cladistic approach if you wish.

Either way, the only humans are us.  Robots and aliens will not fall into that category, as neither one is descended from that particular branch of life, however we are defining it.

[Exoscientist]

23 hours 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?

 

The Boys from Brazil (1978) - YouTube.

 

  Bob Clark

[Bill Phil]

8 hours ago, Darnok said:

 

2 hours ago, razark said:

If it's not a biological organism of the genus homo, it's not human.

I'm not saying an AI robot such as you discuss should not be considered a "person", or not have equivalent rights as any human.  An alien creature that is in every way identical to a human would also not be a human.  Basically, if it's not part of the genus homo, then it's not a human by definition.

Scientifically, sure. But it evolved from our minds... 

But, definitions change over time. By the time a robot as such is created, legal definitions must account for it. And if it is in every way a human except it was built by humans, then it's human. The robots could even be biological. After all, humans are technically machines.

[YNM]

Cloning... Hmm, that's a bit excessive IMO ? If your point is that one gets (few / specific) organ(s), out of whole organism, why just not make one in a vat ? Also, genetic modification would work better in longer terms. I heard that some family lines in Italy have additional mechanism to completely remove cholesterol in their blood - even their elders can (regularly ?) enjoy "bad" foods ! Now who doesn't want that ? Add to that disease immunity, environtmental resistance, better physiology, etc. ... You won't be having it (well, unless you really want to live, like, forever) but your children would. If you clone, you'll need more and more clones - not a good sight I guess. 

WRT "what's human ?" : I'd say that humans are the only one that can breed with humans too, producing humans that can breed too. Anything else is within the definition of a person (persona ?) that it could be treated the same as persons of humans but is clearly not humans. For those disease of infertility... Hmm, well, it's a disease... DNA then.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by YNM
new editor prone to excessive spaces

[Kryten]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

Scientifically, sure. But it evolved from our minds... 

But, definitions change over time. By the time a robot as such is created, legal definitions must account for it. And if it is in every way a human except it was built by humans, then it's human. The robots could even be biological. After all, humans are technically machines.

Human is a biological definition, it has no legal standing. A petri dish full of HeLa cells is fully human, I wouldn't get dobbed in for murder if I sterilised it.

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, Kryten said:

Human is a biological definition, it has no legal standing. A petri dish full of HeLa cells is fully human, I wouldn't get dobbed in for murder if I sterilised it.

"Human" is often used as the shortened form of "human being." Especially in everyday conversation.

[razark]

"Human being" is just a shortened way of saying "being that is human".  That doesn't really change anything about "human" being a biological definition.  It merely separates a being that is human from a being that is something other than human, such as an alien or intelligent machine.

[Bill Phil]

31 minutes ago, razark said:

"Human being" is just a shortened way of saying "being that is human".  That doesn't really change anything about "human" being a biological definition.  It merely separates a being that is human from a being that is something other than human, such as an alien or intelligent machine.

Except that "human" in "human being" can be a completely anatomical description or a completely biological description. In the anatomical context, humaniform robots do count. 

The definition of human here is as an adjective. The being is human. But what does it describe? The type of being. According to Google: "human" can mean "of, relating to, or characteristic of people." Thus, a "human" being is a being that is a person, or relating to one in that it is similar to a person, or a being characteristic of a person.

Or we can use "humanoid being," of which we still are one type.

[lajoswinkler]

Reproductive cloning of people is a horrible idea because, to develop it, you need to go through an ungodly amount of failures. You know what a failure is in this case? Thousands and thousands of people with horrible developmental errors. Babies born without limbs, organs, disfigured babies, retarded babies with short life spans. You'd basically be producing human tragedies.

It would not be a problem if the process was easy and straightforward because it would be like getting a twin brother/sister decades after you'd born.

 

Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, is ethical and it will soon be a standard method of curing some diseases.

[fujisyugi]

Yes.