Human Cloning a Reminder of Nazis, Says Orthodox

Zenit ^ | 28-Nov-2001 | ZENIT.org News Agency

[MarkWar]

>Every technology has the potential for abuse.

Certainly true. But not every technology can engage in self-replication once it's turned loose.

[shrugs] Some "technology" is profoundly different from others. (Indeed, calling biotechnology "technology" could be construed as a kind of mind control. If I make a steam engine and toss it into the back yard, I don't wake up the next day with a billion more steam engines in the back yard. If I whip up some wild bacteria or virus culture and toss it into the back yard, the next day normal weather patterns might very well be passing out billions of free samples to everyone in the world east of me... )

Mark W.

[Physicist]

and I do not think that we are ready to take that step.

This is the key to your post. YOU do not think WE are ready. Who are YOU? Why should you (or anyone) get a vote as to how others should live and reproduce? This exact same logic--often expressed in the same words--has been used throughout history to repress people in every way imaginable.

This is something that we should be jump into just because it is cool and shiney,

Just cause we know, doesn't mean it is a good idea.

A canard and an empty platitude. I've explained several ways on this thread in which cloning would be a very good idea (I'm sure I can think of many more besides), and you talk as if my position has been that we should do it "because it's nifty" or "because we can". If someday you find someone who holds such positions, you can unload on them, but I doubt you ever will.

[Bonaparte]

"The 'disfunctioning' of the body? How is infertility dysfunctional?"

These and many other "dysfunctions" predictably occur over a broad spectrum of species. But since they are atypical and, above all, because we don't like them, they are deemed "errors." Nature didn't know what it was doing, you see, and nature's "intent" was somehow frustrated by nature itself. But nature's incompetence doesn't stop here. It's also horribly inefficient. Take the kidney as an example. If you told me to deliver 100 parcels, each to a unique address, you would probably expect me to handle only one parcel per delivery, right? I mean, if at each address, I unloaded every one of those parcels and then re-loaded all but one, you'd be flabbergasted at my inefficiency, wouldn't you? But this is exactly what happens in a "functional" kidney tubule, and no one in biology has been able to do anything but theorize about why. Nature also seems to have a horrendous track record on standardization of parts. If you thoroughly dissect a randomly chosen cadaver, you'll find anomalies -- of redundancy, of configuration, of displacement and so on. I, myself, have an "extra" right ureter, discovered only when an IVP was performed. I also have a grossly displaced right ileoinguinal nerve, discovered during a hernia repair (and fortunately not cut). Virtually no one's anatomy conforms in all respects to what is found in the pages of Williams and Warwick. Do you want optimal nutrition? Then don't rely on the table of RDAs because almost nobody's optimal nutritional requirements conform to that, either. It's only an average taken from a fairly broad range, and some people are actually harmed by an RDA-compliant intake. How could nature make so many "mistakes"? Could it be that the fault lies in our own arrogant preconceptions? Nah, couldn't be...

[Physicist]

These are human beings you're talking about. Human beings already do that, even without cloning. What's your solution to that problem?

At any rate, cloning won't make the problem worse. The clones still need mothers to bear them. Lack of available wombs is the limiting factor in either case.

[Bonaparte]

" Well, then it must be true. The Grey Lady is always right."

He went on record with it. And he was quoted in NYTM. He has never retracted his admission, much less asked the NYTM for one.

" Look, if all the twins studies that have been done have been discredited, then my example was bad..."

Nobody said anything about "all the twin studies," just the ones H & M relied most heavily on. Your example was bad because it was drawn from a fatally flawed study that was in turn misrepresented by H & M.

"...if you doubt that there is a genetic component to human intelligence you need look no farther than the difference between humans and chimpanzees."

I expected better than this from you. The discussion, as you know, is concerned with the cause of apparent differences in human intelligence (which is highly controversial, even among qualified scientists), not the cause of differences between separate species (which is not subject to controversy).

[Physicist]

The discussion, as you know, is concerned with the cause of apparent differences in human intelligence (which is highly controversial, even among qualified scientists), not the cause of differences between separate species (which is not subject to controversy).

Where do you think humans and chimpanzees came from?

[Bonaparte]

Their mothers?

[MarkWar]

>These are human beings you're talking about. Human beings already do that[self replicate], even without cloning. (3) What's your solution to that problem? At any rate, (1) cloning won't make the problem worse. (2) The clones still need mothers to bear them.

I don't mean to offend you, but I think you're being disingenuous.

(1) Of course cloning makes things worse. Because clones can be created with modified genetic makeup and then "released" (yech -- sounds like we're talking about trout) into the general population to pass on the modified gene set. And there's just no way to predict the consquences of genetic modifications & interactions until they've been observed for generations and generations. And, of course, in the general population -- as somebody has already observed -- you can't recall a bad gene set...

2) I'm sure someone somewhere is working on an artificial womb chock full of growth factors etc. that will speed development time and make the whole process of "women" superfluous.

3) Solution? To human breeding? I wasn't aware is was a problem! Kind of a Nazi-like statement on your part, don't you think? Population is a resource to be treasured, not a pest to be eradicated.

Mark W.

[Physicist]

1) But that's exactly the same situation with natural mutations, which occur with every generation! <sarcasm>What's your solution to that problem?</sarcasm> In any case, you might be interested in reviewing this thread for my views on that (tangential) topic: Our Biotech Future.

2) How do you know that a technology like that won't someday save the human race? Sure, there are plenty of people around nowadays so we don't see why we'd need many more very quickly. (Aside: it's surreal that I'm getting Malthusian warnings from someone who linked to the brilliant Julian Simon, but anyway.) But what if someday the small remnant of humanity faces extinction, and needs to increase its numbers? Can you guarantee that we won't need to have such a technique in our bag of tricks? Whether it be cloning, or gene selection

3) I should have included sarcasm tags (see above). YOU were the one who was hinting that reproducing human beings (who happen to have been cloned, but they're as human as you or I) constitute a problem. As for Simon, I am foursquare in his camp. People, be they clones, test-tube babies or otherwise, are the solution and not the problem.

[aposiopetic]

Could it be that the fault lies in our own arrogant preconceptions? Nah, couldn't be...

Of course not. Everything that can be known can be known through our senses. Including the truth [whatever that is] of that proposition itself :)

[aposiopetic]

That objection pertains to any to any medical intervention. Any.

I wasn't objecting. I did not characterize any medical intervention as restoring proper function. It is you who have mentioned 'disfunction'.

[Physicist]

I did not characterize any medical intervention as restoring proper function.

You're using Clinton's dictionary, aren't you?

[Physicist]

I wrote: Whether it be cloning, or gene selection

Sorry about the sentence fragment; Lord knows what happened to it. The original read, "Whether it be cloning or gene selection, I can't predict what technologies my descendents are going to need in order to survive."

[aposiopetic]

Cast aspersions if you like. My point remains unrebutted, that to speak of dysfunction presupposes a proper function.

[Physicist]

Everything that can be known can be known through our senses.

How do we sense the non-factorability of the 100th Mersenne Prime? Or isn't that knowable?

[Physicist]

My point remains unrebutted, that to speak of dysfunction presupposes a proper function.

Indeed, your point remains unmade, as far as I can tell. Spell it out for me. Is it some Zen thing?

[JMJ333]

Human Cloning a Reminder of Nazis, Says Orthodox

So is publically funding the monsters at the NIH who are using strands of stem cells [body parts] duplicated from original strands that were ripped out of a living human embryo, harvested for no other purpose except for the benefit of others.

When we opened the door to eugencis, and accepted compromise on stem cell research we shouldn't be surprised what is thrown at us from the part of the science community that is atheistic.

[aposiopetic]

The 99th and 100th Mersenne primes: what a Père!

[aposiopetic]

You said

IVF is an end run around the disfunctioning of the body

That is, you used the term "disfunctioning of the body." For "disfunctioning" to have meaning, there must be a (presumably proper) "functioning."

Specifically, you have said in essence that IVF is a way around the bodily "disfunction" manifest as infertility.

Is it any surprise that there will be significant variation among individuals with respect to complex traits such as fertility? How, then, is infertility "disfunctional"?