Human Cloning Possible Within 50 Years, Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Claims

Instead of cloning, have sex by Harald+Paulsen · 2012-12-20 20:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Unless you're a single parent, just have sex. Good way to create a new offsprint, no? :-)

--
Harald

Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:20 · Score: 0

We don't need more people. The resource problem is not going to solve itself, and we are not capable of solving our current issues. Adding more people is stupid, stupid, stupid. Mandatory sterilization for every woman who has birthed one live offspring.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:45 · Score: 0

You believe we cannot solve our problems, yet you object to having more human brains around. Then you suggest sterilizing successful breeders.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:07 · Score: 0

Having less brains around to suck up the dwindling and inadequate energy supplies IS the solution. Putting more energy-demanding people on the planet without adequate energy resources which make survival, let alone thriving, possible is like playing black on roulette table 20 times in a row and winning each time, then letting it ride and it ends up red. It is not a smart bet that having more brains leads to a faster solution if there even is one aside from living within the capacity threshold of this planet. We already exceed that capacity so far that it is unsustainable even for a moderate amount of time, at least for life as we know it. The objection to forced sterilization on moral grounds is met in kind by my moral objection to what we are now doing which is committing ourselves to a delayed mass extinction or near-mass extinction event. When the population boom goes bust you will see way more suffering than from a woman who is told she cannot have more than one child. I know which one is more moral in the long-term. Why don't you?
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:02 · Score: 0

More brains around? Have you forgotten that a majority of the population consists of imbeciles? They'll just get goods grades (and pretend as if that means they're intelligent), be useless, and ultimately soak up resources.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-20 22:23 · Score: 1

So you support cutting the populating by 50% in one generation? We are already having problems with too many elderly and not enough people to take care of them, and you want to change the ratio by 100%?
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by erroneus · 2012-12-20 22:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

No, it's a terrible way... for men anyway. Fact is, women very often use men so they can have children and simply "change" after they got what they want. Often the current legal system is used as a means of collecting child support so that the woman doesn't have to work for a living. Stuff like this goes on more than I would like to think. And I was almost a victim of ridiculous rules about child support where my ex-wife was collecting welfare in California and she included our two sons in with the claim. I don't know how long the process takes, but eventually, the state of California tracked me down to my employer and informed them of the requirement to take my pay. This was very confusing for me and for my employer. The problem? *I* had the children with me and had been with me for quite some time. Had them enrolled in school. The records of my having them were abundantly available. The child support office in Texas said "it is not our responsibility to validate the claims made by other states" and apparently the rules for proof are equally bad in California. I actually had to take my sons out of school, drag them down to the child support office with all sorts of paperwork to prove I am their father and that my sons are with me. What the hell!? So easy for women to make claims and so hard for men to fight it.
We used to appreciate the need for a strong nuclear family. I don't know when that changed... probably before I realized it... I grew up rather old fashioned and still think like that most of the time.
There is a population decline in the first world. The third world is multiplying like rabbits, however. "Save the children"? Really? Stop having children you can't support. I know. I know... that's a first-world person's mind. I'm sure there are good reasons for bringing in a baby which cannot be supported into the world. To be fair, a lot of it is instinct but we can't talk about that because instinct is something only animals have instead of minds to think with and we can't go anywhere near that subject.
It might seem somewhat orwellian or apocalyptic or something, but I seriously think there should be some population controls in place as it is. But once again, no one wants to go there... to decide who should reproduce and who shouldn't. "Do you have a license for that baby?" The world is facing some serious problems with population and resources. It is presently not sustainable and something has got to give. And with global warming changing the way rain falls all over the planet, there will soon be some massive dyings in different parts of the world... and violence... there's always violence... all of which could be avoided if we would simply take charge of our human existance and bring things under control.
It would be immoral... but is it less immoral to let thousands of not millions die of starvation? Only the 1% are expected to survive all of this well you know.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by erroneus · 2012-12-20 22:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Most brains are wasted completely and utterly on religion and territorial battles. Increasing the number of brains will not matter since the brains who are in charge are NOT the best brains we have... only the most selfish and sociopathic.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:56 · Score: 0

You believe that brains can magically make energy appear. If that were so, why did it take the discovery of oil to propel our technology forward? Is it because you have blinders on?
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by somersault · 2012-12-20 23:16 · Score: 1

Then you suggest sterilizing successful breeders
Sounds like someone could do with watching Idiocracy.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:33 · Score: 0

How about we just sterilize people like you.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:55 · Score: 0

My parents were in their fifties when we lost my brother. And cloning won't replace him.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 00:22 · Score: 0

Where do you think we are?

No, but seriously, this might be the only way I'll ever have children. I don't really care enough to go out and meet women. I guess I could get a donor egg, but that's just not the same.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by TheCarp · 2012-12-21 00:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

> We used to appreciate the need for a strong nuclear family. I don't
> know when that changed... probably before I realized it... I grew up
> rather old fashioned and still think like that most of the time.
For a rather short period of time. The "nuclear family" was probably never the best of ideas, and definitely a modern one. There is ample evidence that living in extended families has huge benefits, not the least of which is the resulting serious decrease in mental health issues (believed to be due to growing up with a larger support network).
In an extended family, there are just plain more people to watch the kids, more people to teach them. Its better for the kids, better for the parents, better for the older generations.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by scarboni888 · 2012-12-21 01:00 · Score: 1

The total amount of intelligence is a constant.
It is only the population which increases.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Lumpy · 2012-12-21 01:18 · Score: 2

"We don't need more selfish and stupid people"
FTFY...
The main problem is that the fastest breeding segment of the population is the 100 and lower IQ segment. The higher IQ segment is actually breeding less and less.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Digital+Vomit · 2012-12-21 01:39 · Score: 3, Funny

You believe that brains can magically make energy appear.

Of course. Haven't you seen that documentary, The Matrix?

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Soft+Cosmic+Rusk · 2012-12-21 01:51 · Score: 1

[citation needed]
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 02:27 · Score: 0

A good starting point would be sterilizing women who ask for it instead of denying them based on religious affiliation of hospitals.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Smallpond · 2012-12-21 02:39 · Score: 1

Unless you're a single parent, just have sex. Good way to create a new offsprint, no? :-)
Hey, new word:
Offsprint (n) - Offspring created through cloning.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 02:40 · Score: 0

If an extended family is good, then what's wrong with me living in my mom's basement?!
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by smooth+wombat · 2012-12-21 02:49 · Score: 1

Try this one.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by lxs · 2012-12-21 03:00 · Score: 1

It wasn't so much the discovery of oil (which had been known for 5000 years), but the insight that you can use it for more than burning it in smelly and dangerous lamps.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 03:05 · Score: 0

Are you lost?
This is slashdot. Cloning may be the only option for us.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 03:16 · Score: 0

Dont need one, you are a prime example.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 03:22 · Score: 0

If an extended family is good, then what's wrong with me living in my mom's basement?!
Nothing wrong with living in Mom's basement. But to actually be a part of the extended family your interaction has to consist of more than yelling for her to bring down more Hot Pockets.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by TheCarp · 2012-12-21 03:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

I never said there was anything wrong with it.
Now is there? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I think it depends on other circumstances.
If you live in their house and basically live off them, then I tend to think that, unless you have a disability that prevents you from helping (and help could be paying rent), that your situation deserves every bit of the stigma that it has.
If you live with them because of a bad situation, trouble finding a job etc, hey family is family, we help eachother through tough times.
If you are productive, maybe paying rent or at least taking part in keeping the place running and making sure that they get as much benefit from you being there as you do from them being there... then I think that's a great situation.
Imagine you have kids... your kids get to grow up knowing your parents, your parents get to grow up knowing them, much more than even if they just lived a few streets away. On top of that you get instant baby sitters, extra eyes and helping hands with all of the chores around raising your kids. Quite literally, everybody wins.
Obviously this isn't a win for everybody...if you have abusive parents or a particularly toxic relationship with them, its not going to work, but on average, I do think its superior.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 04:28 · Score: 0

ever seen the movie "Idiocracy"? i seriously fear we are heading toward that....
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by RedHackTea · 2012-12-21 04:32 · Score: 1

I agree that there needs to be some control of population now. However, for the people out there saying that we should go to strict cloning, it's a terrible idea. Cloning ruins natural evolution and immunities, so even from a scientific perspective, it's a bad idea.

--
The G
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 06:17 · Score: 0

What you say is unfortunately so very very true. So far I don't know a single divorced man that hasn't been screwed by the system. It is waaay too stacked against men. If you're smart just say "NO" to getting married.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Rynd · 2012-12-21 06:48 · Score: 1

Mandatory sterilization for every woman who has birthed one live offspring.
Why not sterilize the men instead? It is a simpler, cheaper procedure with fewer risks and a lower failure rate.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-12-21 06:57 · Score: 1

Very good point, and i agree. My cousin has gotten with a Catholic boy friend who brought her to his priest who has told her she will burn in hell if she uses birth control. She is a high school drop out (she may have her g.e.d. but i don't think so) she now has two kids by this guy and is supporting both kids and her boyfriend who refuses to watch the kids while she is at work and he refuses to get a job.
Another problem with sterilization is that of liability. I went to church (one that has no problems with use of birth control or condoms) with a doctor that was sued by a women that he a performed a hysterectomy on because she wanted kids and could not due to the surgery. The woman had come to him requesting the surgery he (she had no medical issue requiring it, it was an elective surgery) informed her that she did not need, she still wanted it, he had her get second opinions and be informed of all of the consequences of the surgery from two other doctors, she signed two release forms/waivers. When she took him to court she won any way and received millions in damages.
Personally i am in favor of a voluntary paid reverse-able sterilization program. Pay them a just less than the cost of reversing the operation. another idea might be to pay people on wellfare/entitlements slightly more if the undergo sterilization.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by micahraleigh · 2012-12-21 07:33 · Score: 0

This is the same "resource problem" Karl Marx melodramatic about.

I only know 1 person who starved to death, and of his own choosing. If people in Africa lived like they do in the US, they wouldn't be starving over there either. It has *nothing* to do with resources.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by abuelos84 · 2012-12-21 11:41 · Score: 1

Nah, it means fucking running.

--
-- Counting backwards since 1984!
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by bbelt16ag · 2012-12-21 15:19 · Score: 1

Erroneus, There are many many problems with the USA, and the World, Climate change is a BIG one, we only have on blue ball to live on, and no mars is not cool for us right now no matter what they say. Having babies is how people pass on our heritate of DNA, you can't ask these people to stop having babies, nor make them only have oneI think they would freak at this point. At some point people in other less off countries will stop having them, once the technology and modern world is at the their finger tips and their chiIdren are educatied, at least to the crappy level USA is. As far as decisions go.. I dont see the people making good choices nor the governments of the world. They are both going to wait until the sunburn starts to sting and then it will be too late to do anything but cry and hold on tight i fear. If there is going to be a paradine shift to make them listen to the Scientists and Engineers who have been screaming at the tops of their lungs to do something about these problems #1 is climate change and it has to happen NOW, not 10 years, not 5, not one, NOW, or you will have slightly less then 9 billion people to worry about in 2050...

--
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by bbelt16ag · 2012-12-21 15:21 · Score: 1

isn't why doctors have malpractice insurance?

--
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-12-21 15:48 · Score: 1

yes but the have to pay more and more on their malpractice because of stupid ass crap like that and the doctors then have to raise their rates, to compensate medical insurance rates raise for the end user. health care prices would be much lower if there was some tort reform and lowering of malpractice and medical insurance rates to go with it.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Occams · 2012-12-22 09:49 · Score: 1

Do you think that Americans could resist cloning Elvis? I don't.

--
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.

Human cloning is a gimmick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

You may be able to recreate a human with the exact same genetic material as its source, but that doesn't mean creating another you. The butterfly effect applies in the womb (or whatever replacement they will be using for it) - the brain will develop slightly differently in individuals, even if genetic material is 100% identical. Thus, identical twins may well have slightly different characters (one good, one evil). Also, this clone of yours will never have had the exact set of experiences that you did, and therefore will develop differently.

Also, I may be biased but I think the old fashioned way of creating humans is more fun.

Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by meerling · 2012-12-20 22:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wouldn't say 'slight differences'. Even raised in the same environment, and sharing many of the same experiences, identical twins are not identical. Nobody would argue that they are two different people.
Obviously a clone may share appearances with their DNA donor, but would have a totally different environment and experiences. They would probably be nothing alike outside of their overall appearance.

Saying that parents could replace a dead offspring is a horrible and deceitful thing to say. The clone would be a new person that only looked like the dead one. The parents would be torturing themselves by having a constant reminder of the dead child in the image of a new one that definitely isn't the prior one. As to the poor clone, it would be always having to live up to the expectations others have based on a dead child. You thought you had a problem living in the shadow of your older siblings, just imagine the horror of living in the shadow of a dead child you were cloned from.;

I'm not against cloning, but it needs to be done for the correct reason, and people need to understand that the clones are new individuals that have nothing to do with their donor other than sharing a genetic heritage, just like you. You see, you are essentially a hybrid clone derived from 2 donors. It's not an exact analogy, but it's close enough. Kind of funny how that works out.
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by tehcyder · 2012-12-20 23:11 · Score: 2

Until we can exactly copy a human brain into a blank one, the fact that you can make an identical looking body is totally irrelevant. You could probably get that by cosmetic surgery now anyway, but no one would think for a minute that it was a replica of the original you had lost.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by 3.5+stripes · 2012-12-20 23:19 · Score: 1

Ask Aphex Twin about that experience, his parents named him exactly the same as his older dead brother, and when he was young they took him to see a gravestone with his name on it..
People wonder why he makes the music he does.

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:32 · Score: 0

I think a long term study of human clones over time would give some interesting data as to what we consider unique about ourselves.
Saying that parents can replace a dead offspring is a technically correct (from a socially inept scientific standpoint), yet terribly insensitive thing to say.
I'm fairly sure that in society, as the hybrid clone of two donors, one is held to the standards of those donors. I refer you to "The apple does/doesn't fall far from the tree", "living up to expectations", and other such idioms. Incidentally, I do find it a little horrifying.
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by Sigg3.net · 2012-12-20 23:54 · Score: 2

For those of us in IT; It's not a backup, it's an early fork.

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by oodaloop · 2012-12-21 01:05 · Score: 1

Same thing happened to Vincent Van Gogh. Every day on the way to and from school, he passed by a tombstone with his name on it.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by MatrixCubed · 2012-12-21 01:34 · Score: 1

....because "good" and "evil" are only "slightly different"... :-\
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by RockDoctor · 2012-12-21 01:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Same thing happened to John Smith.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by mapkinase · 2012-12-21 02:04 · Score: 1

>even if genetic material is 100% identical
Don't forget about epigenetics.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 03:41 · Score: 0

I'm not against cloning, but it needs to be done for the correct reason
I can't think of any "correct reason". The best case I can think of is a couple where one partner has a serious genetic defect, but that is handled far more easily with donor gametes than with cloning. Wanting a child genetically identical to oneself is sheer egomania. Raising a child in order to have a perfectly matched living organ donor is completely unethical. Cloning is also ethically dubious as a stepping stone toward Gattaca-style designer genetics.
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by mcgrew · 2012-12-21 04:07 · Score: 1

Also, Salvadore Dali. Nutt as a fruitcake (hung from an airplane by his moustache... sheesh!)

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 04:36 · Score: 0

Until we can exactly copy a human brain into a blank one...
I had been working on a story with that premise.... although my premise involved being able to copy a human brain's experiences over top of the old, replacing them entirely. I never finished it, unfortunately.... couldn't figure out where to take it once I had described the technology.
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 05:11 · Score: 0

Saying that parents could replace a dead offspring is a horrible and deceitful thing to say. The clone would be a new person that only looked like the dead one.
Not necessarily. If done quickly enough, the head of their dead child could be transplanted onto the body of the clone. This has been successfully done in monkeys (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_transplant). Of course, the child would be quadripeligic.
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by Quirkz · 2012-12-21 06:40 · Score: 1

That's okay, Orson Scott Card has a series of short stories hinging on that topic, compiled into a book. I think it's called "Empire" but it could be something else kind of like that. Starts at near-modern day and spans a rise and fall of a galactic civilization. So now you can go spoil the idea for yourself by reading his.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-12-21 09:26 · Score: 1

You may be able to recreate a human with the exact same genetic material as its source, but that doesn't mean creating another you. The butterfly effect applies in the womb (or whatever replacement they will be using for it) - the brain will develop slightly differently in individuals, even if genetic material is 100% identical. Thus, identical twins may well have slightly different characters (one good, one evil). Also, this clone of yours will never have had the exact set of experiences that you did, and therefore will develop differently.
Also, I may be biased but I think the old fashioned way of creating humans is more fun.
Absolutely!

It's been conclusively proven that "who you are" is almost as much your genes as it is your mothers genes (ie gestating parent) as well as what she ate and all the other aspects of her life (eg emotional/mental stress) at the time.

WHO YOU ARE is 50% genetic and 50% all the other aspects of ALL of your environment from the moment of conception.

Cloning a human being will produce something close to genetic identity, but it WILL (probably) NEVER produce "the same person".

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

Nature vs. nuture by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:16 · Score: 0

I can see developmental and genetic psychologists lining up to see this.

"He said that parents who lose their children to tragic accidents might be able to clone replacements in the next few decades." on the other hand, is misleading, absolutely outrageous, and unintentionally hilarious.

Re:Nature vs. nuture by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-20 20:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Grieving parents are not the most rational decision makers. It's quite possible that there will be a scientist of dubious morality somewhere in one of the less regulated countries willing to produce a clone, and grieving parents who will hand over their life savings for even the slimmest chance of recapturing just a hint of the child they lost.
Re:Nature vs. nuture by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:00 · Score: 1

There is a pretty fair chance that human clones already exist. It only becomes an ethical issue if you make the arbitrary decision to examine it as an ethical issue. These days it seems we have unofficial morality and ethic goons who wish to reach out and apply their usually warped beliefs to actions of people and places that have nothing to do with them at all. They seem to have some internal bill of rights that causes them to want to be some sort of judge over everything, everywhere, at all times.
Re:Nature vs. nuture by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:41 · Score: 0

The internal bill of rights is called consciousness. That defines one's morality.
Those who are really interested in ethics try to convince and persuade people and are usually not into make people things they don't want.
All others, are just control freaks.

Replace a dead child? by michael021689 · 2012-12-20 20:21 · Score: 2

I support human cloning. Why not? Maybe some of us are too valuable to waste by mixing our genetics with an inferior being. I'm sure there are people who think like that. But to replace a child? Not only would the kid always worry about whether or not he was "wanted" or "playing his role" correctly, but the parents would quite likely overcompensate in one way or another. Would you really want to be a "replacement" whose parents either spoiled you stupid for being someone that isn't "you" or neglect you because you don't "match" the way you should?

Re:Replace a dead child? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:30 · Score: 0

its because of incredibly stupid assertions like this "replace your dead child" that cloning has taken this umbeliveably negative characteristics - if you clone somebody you obtain an identical twin, identical twin _ARE_ clones, nothing more and nothing less.
Re:Replace a dead child? by guttentag · 2012-12-20 21:21 · Score: 2

I support human cloning. Why not? Maybe some of us are too valuable to waste by mixing our genetics with an inferior being. I'm sure there are people who think like that.
If you should run into such a person, ask them if they think inbreeding with their cousins is wrong. Then ask them if inbreeding with their siblings is wrong. Then ask them to imagine the kind of genetic disaster that would result if they inbred with themselves.

But to replace a child? Not only would the kid always worry about whether or not he was "wanted" or "playing his role" correctly, but the parents would quite likely overcompensate in one way or another. Would you really want to be a "replacement" whose parents either spoiled you stupid for being someone that isn't "you" or neglect you because you don't "match" the way you should?
Any parent who is so selfish that they value the genetic attributes of their dead kid more than the relationship they shared with that unique individual should have their cloned kid taken away. And then the cloned kids should be permitted to clone their parents so they can raise them properly. And some day when their parent clones are grown up they can introduce them to their original parents and let Jerry Springer decide which one turned out better.
Re:Replace a dead child? by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-20 22:31 · Score: 1

But what exactly makes a person 'too valuable to waste'? With a different set of experiences a clone is likely to turn out quite differently from the original. Let's say you clone a sports legend - with different experiences the clone likely won't choose to dedicate his/her life to training to repeat the achievements of the original.
Re:Replace a dead child? by erroneus · 2012-12-20 22:41 · Score: 1

Now that's just creepy. Nothing like giving a child; a clone child at that; giving a child a serious identity complex. "We loved your source so much and when we lost him, we wanted to bring him back. Now we have you." Huh?! What? You love me or my ghost brother?! WTF?!
Re:Replace a dead child? by dbIII · 2012-12-20 22:43 · Score: 1

It makes more sense than replacing an adult unless a way is found around a clone of say a 48 year old having a very short life span while a clone of a one year old having a normal life span. Look at some of the things written about Dolly the sheep for details (New Scientist had some good stuff).
Oddly enough childrens anime explores these themes well - in Nanoha there is a character obsessed with her dead daughter who creates a clone, but then hates the clone intensely because the clone is not really her daughter.

I'm afraid I don't have the imagination for a useful application for human cloning apart from morally dubious stuff like growing a liver donor. If somebody rich enough to get a clone grown wants an heir there's plenty of babies out there to adopt.
Re:Replace a dead child? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-12-20 23:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Kid: "Mom, I want a skateboard!"
Mom: "No, you'll fall off a handrail doing a trick with it, crack your head open, and die."
Kid: "No I won't!"
Mom: "Trust me, this is the third time that I've been through this . . . "

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:Replace a dead child? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 02:47 · Score: 0

Venture Bros.

Would anyone really want to replace a dead child? by Radak · 2012-12-20 20:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

I can understand the desire to clone lost pets. The pet relationship is one of companionship, and creating a pet predisposed to similar behaviors as one who made a good companion before makes some sense, but a child? I cannot imagine most parents would want to do that, no matter the circumstances of the loss of the original child. You think it's tough on a kid finding out he's adopted? Imagine finding out you were a replacement.

50 years?? by Spy+Handler · 2012-12-20 20:30 · Score: 1

why so long? Biology ain't my thing, but I fail to see what's so different about humans than sheep or dogs. Is human DNA that much more complex than other mammals?

I thought the problem was more of an ethical one rather than technical. My understanding is that to clone an animal, you must create lots of fetuses and most of them die until you get a successful one. Acceptable for sheep, not acceptable for humans. Is that right?

Re:50 years?? by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-12-20 20:43 · Score: 2

I would imagine that animals can't communicate any other conditions that they might have as a result of the process, but our technology to detect these problems either hasn't matured or doesn't exist. Take for example, having pain or numbness somewhere. Or maybe in things that most animals don't have, for example finer motor skills or higher order thought processes.
I suspect that cloning an octopus or a dolphin respectively could determine the practicability of those, but there are any number of other things that could be missed.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:50 years?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:16 · Score: 0

Also a lot of the cloned animals haven't lived all that long for one reason or another
Re:50 years?? by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-20 22:12 · Score: 1

Cloneing is very unreliable. Dolly was famous, but less famous were the hundreds of failed attempts which either failed to implant or miscarried before birth. Such an approach works fine in sheep, where your lab can keep a breeding stock of ewes, but it isn't very practical for humans.
Re:50 years?? by HungryHobo · 2012-12-20 22:14 · Score: 1

cloning tech isn't perfect. before dolly there were a lot of sheep born inside out and similar.
with sheep a lot of failures isn't a big deal but if we rushed ahead with cloning humans it would likely lead to a lot of deformed and damaged children which would almost certainly lead to the tech being banned.
Which would be a pity because there's incredible possible medical applications.
lets say they figured out how to clone individual organs. bad heart? lets grow you a new one.
Re:50 years?? by erroneus · 2012-12-20 22:45 · Score: 1

The problem would be doing it right and perfect each and every time and to be able to intervene if things start to go bad along the way. A six-legged calf isn't so much of a moral issue... but deformed human clones?! Uh boy.... do we have to go there?

Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:32 · Score: 0

We could clone kdawson so he could go fuck himself!

Cloning for organ farming by Radak · 2012-12-20 20:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only kind of human cloning I think I'd really like to see is cloning for organ farming, either cloning an entire (brainless, presumably) copy of myself so I have an entire inventory of replacement organs, or cloning individual organs as the need arises. Ultimately, I'd like to be able to grow a whole new me whose body is, say, 20 years old, and then transfer my brain into the new body. Still have to solve the problem of the brain itself decaying, but once we figure that out, the world can enjoy my rapier wit forever!

Re:Cloning for organ farming by etash · 2012-12-20 20:56 · Score: 1

I think the technologically hardest problem of all is the brain transferring process: correctly read and transfer.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by xstonedogx · 2012-12-20 20:58 · Score: 4, Funny

You took the wrong lesson away from The Island. The correct lesson: clone Scarlett.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Radak · 2012-12-20 21:04 · Score: 1

I was thinking surgical transfer rather than copy. Copying is probably a lot further off technologically (if it's possible at all) and is rife with "where is the soul" and "who am I" and "what is sentience" questions. Surgically, once the technology exists, it should just be a massive cable patching task.
This raises an interesting question for the hardware types: If physical brain transfer becomes commonplace, we're going to need a standardized connector so that we're not soldering a million nerves every time. What would the connector look like? Please, not a massive version of RJ45. I feel bad enough breaking the tab off my ethernet cable connectors. Imagine how I would feel when I did that to my husband.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Spy+Handler · 2012-12-20 21:12 · Score: 1

two words: CRC check
Re:Cloning for organ farming by etash · 2012-12-20 21:12 · Score: 2

surgical transfer is a temporary choice in my book. and a bad one that is. like you said the brain decays too. For me the correct and elegant solution is mind-transfer. The "where is the soul" problem is non-existent for non religious people ( and i think most people who have "ethical" problems with cloning do so, mainly due to a total collapse of the "this unique thing called soul exists" notion -- though i'm sure they will find a philosophical workaround once a human clone happens, but that's a totally different topic ). The "who am i" question will not arise, because the "new" you will feel exactly that the old new, provided that the mind-information transfer was precise and total. It's like you waking up from an appendectomy surgery. Do you ask yourself that question in that occasion ?

it won't be an rj45, it will be an intel socket 2011!
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:21 · Score: 0

Read Spares by Michael Marshall Smith.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by terec · 2012-12-20 21:23 · Score: 1

You don't need cloning for that. If you wanted a replacement body, you could start with any fetus and modify its immune system not to reject your brain. And for transplanting individual organs, there will likely be cheaper and simpler ways of (1) preventing rejection of foreign organs or (2) growing them from your own stem cells within a decade or so without having to go through the expense of cloning.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Radak · 2012-12-20 21:27 · Score: 1

The "where is the soul" problem is non-existent for non religious people
I don't know about that. I'm completely non-religious, but I still ask myself what's special about the collection of cells in my head that make me me. I don't think you have to have imaginary sky friends to ponder whether there's something about that mass of cells that can't simply be copied, taking the consciousness with it.

The "who am i" question will not arise, because the "new" you will feel exactly that the old you
And herein lies a problem I've always pondered about transporters (as in "beam me up"). If you can make a perfect copy of a thinking brain, I think you're right that the new copy will feel exactly like the old copy, which means it will think it's the old copy, which means it'll happily tell you that the copying process worked just fine and consciousness really did transfer to the new copy. How do we prove it? How can we be certain that whatever my consciousness is, whatever makes my experience mine, wasn't destroyed in the copying process, merely producing a perfect copy that thinks it's me? We could be "dying" every time we copy/transport and never know it.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by etash · 2012-12-20 21:58 · Score: 1

about your first paragraph:

it's not (entirely) about the cells, but mostly about what's stored in them. in other words, it's about the software and data, not the hardware. Though actually both hardware and software ( + data ) make us for what we are. Nevertheless, the question shouldn't arise, because I don't see why either can't be copied theoretically. Hardware ( the brain ) can be copied - theoretically - in a 1-1 process, through cloning, and the same goes for software and data, once we have a technique through which we can read what the cells store. I mean, I don't see any theoretical problem with it, it's merely practical for the time being. The brain is just a complex electrochemical machine with a hard disk. Unless one believes in invisible pink unicorns ( soul ) , I don't see why it cannot theoretically be exactly copied.

about your second paragraph:

how do we prove it. I think it goes like this: when we will be at a technological stage where mind reading and transferring will start to be possible, we most probably won't suddenly have a 100% copy technique, it may start as a 90% copy and through refinements it will reach 99% or 99,999% even up to 100%. Even a 95% or 99% copy is not bad. I don't think people who have brain surgeries and have had parts of their brains removed or disabled due to a stroke, feel like they are not their real selves. How do we prove the copy was exact ? I think it will be possible through a md5 or sha1 check of both minds after the copying transfer. I don't see why does it matter if the old copy is destroyed in the process of copying ( if it works that way ), IF the new copy is exactly the same. It doesn't matter at all. The "death" will only be a second or so and you won't be aware of it. Just like going to sleep and then waking up.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-20 22:25 · Score: 1

Brain transplant is a surgical nightmare. All those cranial nerves and fiddly bits, on an organ fragile as jelly. Don't transplant the brain: Transplant the whole head. It's easier.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-20 22:35 · Score: 1

And your brainless copy can spend it's time doing healthy exercise and waiting to go to the Island.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-20 22:39 · Score: 1

But let's say we learn to copy the brain (while not copying the decay). What do we do with the original brain? Kill it? Sure the new you would feel it was the same person as the old you, but so would the old you.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by c0lo · 2012-12-20 22:40 · Score: 1

What would the connector look like? Please, not a massive version of RJ45.
Ah, you're a Linux user, I see
.
.
.
.
.
.
(spoiler alert)

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by erroneus · 2012-12-20 22:48 · Score: 1

That would be good at some levels, but I think we'd be better off in the long run if we were to ignore commercial interests and start proving which things cause health problems in humans and eliminate them. The problem is we want money more than life and heath and are perfectly happy sacrificing the rest of humanity so we can have better preservatives, pain relievers, sweeteners and other such things.
The money would be better spent on prevention.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:20 · Score: 0

And the best thing is: In 50 years, there's still a chance that I am still alive if life expectancy continues to rise.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-20 23:35 · Score: 1

There is another problem - like you said, we would be copying a person. What do we do with the original?
Re:Cloning for organ farming by drinkypoo · 2012-12-20 23:36 · Score: 1

herein lies a problem I've always pondered about transporters (as in "beam me up"). If you can make a perfect copy of a thinking brain, I think you're right that the new copy will feel exactly like the old copy, which means it will think it's the old copy, which means it'll happily tell you that the copying process worked just fine and consciousness really did transfer to the new copy. How do we prove it?
They address this in Trek, I forget in which movie but I'm pretty sure it was on a movie. Someone complains that they're making copies of people and killing the originals and they say well, that was the old technology, so we only used it for cargo, but now we actually convert you and send you... which is how you can lose someone in a transporter accident. And it's also how you can get the same someone out of the buffer many years later in extreme circumstances.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Cloning for organ farming by bmo · 2012-12-20 23:58 · Score: 1

"They address this in Trek, I forget in which movie but I'm pretty sure it was on a movie. Someone complains that they're making copies of people and killing the original""
Read "Way Station" by Clifford Simak.
Much better than Star Trek and covers this exact subject.
--
BMO
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:59 · Score: 0

Hey, I just heard from your wife. She'd prefer the brainless version of you too, she says it's a step up.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Tagged_84 · 2012-12-21 00:10 · Score: 1

I would never ever step into a teleport, the physics of them means it's a new copy and the original is destroyed in the process. I am really curious though as to how many would use them knowing this? To be it's an instant death machine, I cease to be and the clone continues on until he takes a teleporter.

I'll have to check out that Trek reference.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 00:14 · Score: 0

And herein lies a problem I've always pondered about transporters (as in "beam me up"). If you can make a perfect copy of a thinking brain, I think you're right that the new copy will feel exactly like the old copy, which means it will think it's the old copy, which means it'll happily tell you that the copying process worked just fine and consciousness really did transfer to the new copy. How do we prove it? How can we be certain that whatever my consciousness is, whatever makes my experience mine, wasn't destroyed in the copying process, merely producing a perfect copy that thinks it's me? We could be "dying" every time we copy/transport and never know it. [my emphasis]
What is it you want to prove? How do you define identity? If you define it narrowly enough, we die on a monthly basis, as all our atoms are replaced. You could define it more narrowly, making us die every instant, as the person you are now are not the same person as the one you were a minute ago. However, I see no non-metaphysical way to define it so that teleportation is dying and living a year isn't.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Tagged_84 · 2012-12-21 00:20 · Score: 1

I doubt the energy required to grow brainless clones would be as cost effective as printing the organ's protein structures and using pluripotent stemcells to grow your own replacement on demand. Plus we'll have that technology decades earlier than human cloning's 50 years!
Re:Cloning for organ farming by rich_hudds · 2012-12-21 01:01 · Score: 1

I dunno, I mean your actual atoms change throughout your life so how would this be different?

I think as long as I saw other people coming out seemingly unaffected I'd be happy to use it.

If I am anything I'm probably some kind of currently existing pattern of firing neurons. If they teleport that then they teleport me.

What's your position on sleeping? An extreme version of your argument might suggest that we do all we can to avoid falling asleep. How do you know the you that wakes up was the you that fell asleep? Certainly if I am my consciousness, do I not die everytime I become unconscious? I never remember what I was thinking when I fell asleep at the point of waking.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Soulshift · 2012-12-21 01:01 · Score: 1

I would never ever step into a teleport, the physics of them means it's a new copy and the original is destroyed in the process. I am really curious though as to how many would use them knowing this? To be it's an instant death machine, I cease to be and the clone continues on until he takes a teleporter.
So let's say a doctor puts you into an induced coma, freezes you, manually moves each of your cells individually across the room, then reassembles them while preserving all connectivity between cells. They then thaw you out and restart your heart. Are you the same person?
What if, instead of moving each cell across the room, the cells were transported to another location via a hypothetical teleporter - and a doctor at the other end re-assembled you according to the same process. Would you then be the same person? What is the real difference between the two methods of re-assembly?
Final scenario. You slide one meter to the right on a rolling office chair. All your cells have been translated in one spatial axis by one meter. Are you still the same person? How can you be sure?

--
node-def: a tactical hacking sim. Now in open beta.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Tagged_84 · 2012-12-21 01:17 · Score: 1

huh actually have actually pondered that sleeping scenario. I guess the main worry for me is that the cells are all being copied at once, whereas it takes years to replace every cell through ageing. Perhaps as more understanding of the quantum world comes to light it'll provide me with some relief.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Tagged_84 · 2012-12-21 01:24 · Score: 1

So let's say a doctor puts you into an induced coma, freezes you, manually moves each of your cells individually across the room, then reassembles them while preserving all connectivity between cells. They then thaw you out and restart your heart. Are you the same person?
Sure, still the same person.

What if, instead of moving each cell across the room, the cells were transported to another location via a hypothetical teleporter - and a doctor at the other end re-assembled you according to the same process. Would you then be the same person? What is the real difference between the two methods of re-assembly?
The real difference is that, from what I'm aware of, the use of quantum entanglement for teleportation results in the information being transferred and the physical cell material being destroyed. Or is this not correct?

Final scenario. You slide one meter to the right on a rolling office chair. All your cells have been translated in one spatial axis by one meter. Are you still the same person? How can you be sure?
Again, same person. But you can't be entirely sure, which is a good thing as the worst fate of the future would be running out of unanswered questions.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:31 · Score: 0

(brainless, presumably)
So you're talking about an exact copy of yourself.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Soulshift · 2012-12-21 01:31 · Score: 1

What if, instead of moving each cell across the room, the cells were transported to another location via a hypothetical teleporter - and a doctor at the other end re-assembled you according to the same process. Would you then be the same person? What is the real difference between the two methods of re-assembly?
The real difference is that, from what I'm aware of, the use of quantum entanglement for teleportation results in the information being transferred and the physical cell material being destroyed. Or is this not correct?
Yup, let's assume that 'teleportation' is just instantaneous destruction followed by accurate re-production of the cell in question. So you feel that the destruction of the physical cell matter makes a difference - let's mix it up then.
What happens if 99% of the cells are transported by normal means, and 1% are teleported (i.e. destroyed and recreated.) Still the same person, right?
What happens with escalating percentages? Do you stop being the same person at the 50% mark? The 20% mark?

--
node-def: a tactical hacking sim. Now in open beta.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Tagged_84 · 2012-12-21 01:44 · Score: 1

Yep, sounds like you got it. See I wonder about that question a fair bit as well, especially being someone who'd jump at the chance to assimilate. How much could I replace/upgrade before the death of my self? I wouldn't even know if it happened (err, being on the death is the ultimate end outlook of life) which means I shouldn't waste my time on concerning myself with such questions.

I only see the issue with the brain btw, you could teleport everything but my brain and I'll be comfortable, I see the body as a life support for my brain and self. I'm aiming to read the Enchiridion of Epictetus next as that was recommended to me recently, perhaps some breakthroughs await there!
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:47 · Score: 0

The only kind of human cloning I think I'd really like to see is cloning for organ farming, either cloning an entire (brainless, presumably) copy of myself

Sounds like a faithful replica.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Soulshift · 2012-12-21 01:58 · Score: 1

How much could I replace/upgrade before the death of my self? I wouldn't even know if it happened (err, being on the death is the ultimate end outlook of life) which means I shouldn't waste my time on concerning myself with such questions.
Greg Egan actually tackles this question with a great amount of rigor (he's also a mathematician) and clarity in his short stories and novels. Highly recommended.

--
node-def: a tactical hacking sim. Now in open beta.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Tagged_84 · 2012-12-21 02:07 · Score: 1

Australian too, cool. Will check him out, thanks!
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Kelbear · 2012-12-21 07:22 · Score: 1

Has there been a Star Trek story where: the crew is held captive, and the captain programs his transporter to copy the buffer mid-transport, and then he transfers the data to the replicator to fashion himself a crew to combat the enemy and free his crew, then when questioned what the crew will do now, he reveals that he did makes one small change in the replicator...all of the replicated copies have no telomere in their DNA, and will age and die on the journey home. The copies reluctantly agree...they would have done the same and await their death in quiet reflection of whether or not what he(they) did was right, but ultimately they die and only the original is left to survive with the guilt.
Because it feels like such an obvious story that someone must have done it by now. I'd like to read it.
Re:Cloning for organ farming by mcgrew · 2012-12-21 08:14 · Score: 1

it's not (entirely) about the cells, but mostly about what's stored in them. in other words, it's about the software and data, not the hardware.
In the brain, "software" and "hardware" and "data" are the same things. The brain constantly connects, disconnects, and reconnects, and crossconnects, synapses. The brain is chemical and thought is a chemical reaction. There is no hardware, there is no software, there is no data, there is only chemical reaction that constitutes "thought."
The brain is just a complex electrochemical machine with a hard disk.
The brain has no hard disk. If your computer's disk "forgets" that "memory" is gone forever. OTOH your brain can forget something for decades, and yet you can still get the memory back with the right stimulous. No "pink unicorns" needed, brains sre simply nothing like computers, and to analogize them is foolhardy and, from someone who knows both computers and brains, disingenuous.
I don't think people who have brain surgeries and have had parts of their brains removed or disabled due to a stroke, feel like they are not their real selves.
I see you've never met someone with a catastrophic brain injury. They're a different person than before the injury. Read (or watch) King's The Green Mile, what happens to the warden's wife when she gets a brain tumor is actually common as hell (getting the tumor, not having Coffey cure it).
AND, your brain can be compromised without you even knowing it! When I had eye surgery, in the recovery room I was warned not to drive, sign documents, or make important decisions for 24 hours and would get a DUI if I drove -- but I felt completely sane and sober.
I think it will be possible through a md5 or sha1 check of both minds after the copying transfer.
Again, brains and computers are nothing whatever alike.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Cloning for organ farming by bmo · 2012-12-21 08:55 · Score: 1

No, nobody's done that. There was the "evil spock (you know the one with the goatee) and good spock" episode but it's not quite what you've written
You should write it.
I would read it.
--
BMO
Re:Cloning for organ farming by mcgrew · 2012-12-21 09:40 · Score: 1

I guess the main worry for me is that the cells are all being copied at once, whereas it takes years to replace every cell through ageing.
I am not the same man I was twenty years ago.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Cloning for organ farming by mcgrew · 2012-12-21 09:55 · Score: 1

See I wonder about that question a fair bit as well, especially being someone who'd jump at the chance to assimilate.
I've already been assimilated; the lens in my left eye is artificial, unhuman, nonbiological. It sits on stuts inside the lens capsule so it can focus, so rather than being both severely nearsighted plus with age-related farsightedness as before the surgery, I now have better than normal vison at all distances.
But, you know, I wouldn't have done it on a whim, and to replace part of my brain, well, I'd have to be in pretty bad shape to let them do that.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Cloning for organ farming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 11:20 · Score: 0

one word: PIN Number

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:35 · Score: 0

Right, cloning pets is completely different because... pets aren't humans! Humans are special snowflakes, so you shouldn't clone them!

Cloning is already useful! by bugnuts · 2012-12-20 20:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

I need to farm a new heart with no chance of rejection.

See? The ethical issues aren't complex at all!

Re:Cloning is already useful! by etash · 2012-12-20 20:58 · Score: 3, Funny

you're such a _heartless_ person!

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Radak · 2012-12-20 20:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Right, cloning pets is completely different because... pets aren't humans!

Not trying to come across as some kind of blubbering sentimentalist, but yeah, that's exactly it. I wouldn't call humans "special snowflakes", but yes, humans are different when it comes to things like this, and the ethical questions that must be answered are a superset of those we must answer for other animals.

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:49 · Score: 0

Even if you told a dog to his face that he was a stupid, worthless clone, nothing like the original, he'd sit there and happily wag his tail.

So maybe pets are different than humans and maybe, just maybe, cloning a human has different consequences than cloning a dog.

In other words, it might not be impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:49 · Score: 1

http://xkcd.com/678/ (Researcher Translation)

One valid use for Cloning... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:53 · Score: 0

Until the human memory can be uploaded to digital storage media like Bart Kosko promoted in his Y2k book Heaven in a Chip, a cloned replacement child wouldn't have any of the memories of the deceased child, which would certainly trigger an uncanny valley type of reaction from everyone who knew the deceased to any degree,

But I can think of another very good reason for a clone.

Say you're riding your motorcycle and some idiot in a car left turns you and you're horribly injured and basically just a brain, then I'd love to have a clone to transfer into so I could get back to riding motorcycles.

Re:One valid use for Cloning... by c0lo · 2012-12-20 22:49 · Score: 1

Say you're riding your motorcycle and some idiot in a car left turns you and you're horribly injured and basically just a brain, then I'd love to have a clone to transfer into so I could get back to riding motorcycles.
So, it was me that rode that motorcycle and it was me to become just a brain (BTW, it is called locked-in syndrome), but... it is somehow you to get a clone and get back to riding motorcycles.
It make as much sense of doing the same thing and expecting different results.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:One valid use for Cloning... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 09:50 · Score: 0

You clearly don't ride you worthless cager.
Re:One valid use for Cloning... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 10:22 · Score: 0

You clearly don't ride you worthless cager.
Of course I don't, I'm not insane.
As for the worth matter... :) I'll see you on the roads, rider, I'll make sure to take a turn when I see you going 30 over the limit :)
Re:One valid use for Cloning... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 21:49 · Score: 0

Say you're riding your motorcycle and some idiot in a car left turns you and you're horribly injured and basically just a brain, then I'd love to have a clone to transfer into so I could get back to riding motorcycles.
have fun waiting 20 years until your clone has grown to adulthood.

Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ? by blackiner · 2012-12-20 20:56 · Score: 1

The fuck? I was expecting something like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVIZx3Cl78k but it was just a bunch of old people dancing?

but it ain't the same by SuperDre · 2012-12-20 20:56 · Score: 2

cloning a child doesn't bring the child back, it only brings back a DNA copy, but not the same person (unless they invent something like the 'syncorder' as used in the movie 'the 6th day').
Well, if it's ethical is another matter, as something deemed ethical is always in the eye of the beholder.. personally being able to just buy a new body and keep living on doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.. And what's the difference in cloning an animal or a person, to me there isn't as we too are just animals..

Re:but it ain't the same by etash · 2012-12-20 21:01 · Score: 1

since the person will be totally different, there is no ethical problem imho. the only problem is purely practical, "evolutional": why create an exact copy of an existing biological entity, when you can leave the gene mix matching to the nature for the possible benefit of a better random combination of genes ?

Yeah, because... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:00 · Score: 0

Yeah, because we don't have overpopulation already :(

They made a shitty movie about this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:07 · Score: 0

"Sixth Day", with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

It's a crappy movie, but slightly amusing nonetheless. It dealt with this exact thing, complete with cloned pets too.

50 years? more like next week. by zaax · 2012-12-20 21:13 · Score: 1

As soon as they over come the Hayflick limit cloning will be possiable. Dolly the sheep was cloned may years ago but the lambs had problem with (amost other things) the Hayflick limit.

Re:50 years? more like next week. by drinkypoo · 2012-12-20 23:39 · Score: 1

Dolly the sheep was cloned may years ago but the lambs had problem with (amost other things) the Hayflick limit.
That's OK, people don't eat hay.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

outlaw identical twins? by terec · 2012-12-20 21:16 · Score: 1

I don't see where the "ethical dilemmas" are supposed to be with cloning. A clone is pretty much like an identical twin, nothing more. The only ethical dilemma I see is that cloning may predispose the clone to some additional risk and genetic disorders, but that's something we can presumably get under control (in other primates) and it's something we routinely accept for other reproductive technologies.

Re:outlaw identical twins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:59 · Score: 0

X-men...

What is the aparent issue about cloning? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:24 · Score: 0

Just what is it?

Normal sexual reproduction creates an individual with a randomised mix of DNA. Cloning would create a 'twin'. But twins are quite common. Is it that twins are 'a little creepy'?

Or is it that, once you start developing the ability to specify the DNA sequence precisely, you start thinking about altering it and 'improving' it? Which might produce all kinds of future problems...

Or is it just that 'Brave New World' featured factory-produced clones who were already allocated a position in society? And all the loss of freedom that entails? Well, sure, that's bad - but we've already implemented almost ALL of '1984' - why shouldn't we go the whole hog and do BNW as well?

(My take on 1984 - pretty continuous war for no obvious reason, population kept subdued with games and draconian laws, politicians and law-enforcement staff above the law, use made of torture and psychological techniques to control people, an ongoing story about a vague external enemy (They had 'Goldstein', we had 'terrorists'), extensive networks of cameras and other monitoring devices to provide intelligence on the state's citizens... - you get the picture...)

Re:What is the aparent issue about cloning? by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-20 22:48 · Score: 1

Were the people in Brave New World clones or just grown in vitro? I seem to recall that genetic material of the 'current generation' was harvested (before they were sterilized). Sure there were genetic castes (and the lowest classes were given alcohol as fetuses to stunt their brains), but they were still new combinations of old material.

This won't work! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:34 · Score: 1

Suppose you lose a child. Cloning won't bring back the same kid. It will be only the same body. And you'll live the rest of your life trying to make his behavior the same as the other child raised on a different epoch.

Re:This won't work! by jones_supa · 2012-12-21 07:18 · Score: 1

Indeed. If I were to lose a child, I'd see no need to have another with the same exact genetic properties but maybe something different, to start a new era in my life.

I'd be surprised if this isn't already happening! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:44 · Score: 0

Humans can't be all that different than sheep and mice, and there's plenty of persons with motives and means. If I needed an organ donor, had enough time and money, I'm sure I could find a lab to help out and keep their mouths shut. I'm more surprised that billionaires still keep passing on, as far a we know.

It wouldn't take that long by DrXym · 2012-12-20 21:47 · Score: 1

Scientists can clone high order animals right now including mammals. What exactly is the issue from a scientific standpoint of cloning a human? I'm sure there are issues but mostly they relate to ethics than the actual science. I wouldn't be surprised if some labs could clone a human right now and would if they thought they could withstand the onslaught of controversy and legal issues that it would bring with it.

Re:It wouldn't take that long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 21:55 · Score: 0

Scientists can clone high order animals right now including mammals. What exactly is the issue from a scientific standpoint of cloning a human? I'm sure there are issues but mostly they relate to ethics than the actual science. I wouldn't be surprised if some labs could clone a human right now and would if they thought they could withstand the onslaught of controversy and legal issues that it would bring with it.
277 fertilized eggs, 29 embryos, 3 lambs, 1 Dolly

that's the ethical issue.

Ethical problems? by famebait · 2012-12-20 22:02 · Score: 1

In simple standard case, it's just a matter of an identical twin with a different age. Can't see what's ethically questionable or complex about that.

But there's a hidden snag: normally, there would be no reason to do that. Once there is a more specific motive, the questions start popping up. Most cases have parallels already, but safe, efficient cloning would make them more accessible and likely:

Clueless idiots raising a clone to be a replacement for a lost child isn't in principle any different from clueless people today raising a normal sibling to be a replacement. But it might be more *likeley*.

Conceiving with the specific aim of transplanting is already an ethical conundrum we have to handle today, but with cloning it would be a lot more promising in fulfilling its aim, and the request much more common. Hopefully w'ed be able to grow organs without a clone by then, but you never know.

--
sudo ergo sum

Re:Ethical problems? by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-12-21 03:12 · Score: 1

Finally, somebody with some sense.
What the hell is all this babble about ethical problems? There are no ethical problems unique to clones. A clone is a lab-created identical twin with a different age. The rules do not suddenly change just because of in vitro fertilization. We know this because we already have in vitro fertilization. Cloning is just in vitro fertilization with a single genetic donor instead of two. This is not hard to understand. A baby is a baby, wherever it came from. It grows up to be a person.
Why oh why is there this constant instant stupidity about cloned humans? Slavery is already unethical and illegal. Involuntary organ harvesting is already unethical and illegal. Shit, involuntary organ harvesting from a still-warm corpse who died of an accidental head injury is already unethical and illegal. Yes, even when you're dead, you have rights. There is no possibility whatsoever that any of these would be ethical or legal if the victim happened to be a clone, any more than it would be if the victim happened to be a natural identical twin. The idea is nonsensical and stupid. It isn't even a question, except in moronic Hollywood movies and particularly prurient fiction.
A clone of a person is a person. What's so hard to grasp about this blindingly obvious fact?
Re:Ethical problems? by charlesj68 · 2012-12-21 05:16 · Score: 1

A clone of a person is a person. What's so hard to grasp about this blindingly obvious fact?
In general, I agree with you. Yet, consider the abortion debate:
- One side passionately maintains that the developing organism within the mother is a person (and thus possessing of various rights) from the moment of conception
- Another side passionately maintains that the same entity cannot be considered a person until some (varying) period of time subsequent of conception
Two different views of "personhood" with strongly divergent results as to what can be done to the thing in question. If the quote in the summary is followed:

... in the near future people would overcome their concerns if cloning became medically useful.
Then I expect that for some "utility" could stand in as a valid justification to viewing a clone as not-a-person.

John Gurdon's an interesting fellow... by pev · 2012-12-20 22:12 · Score: 2

He was interviewed this week on Radio 4's "The Life Scientific" and you can download the interview as .mp3. And yes, I think you peeps outside the UK are treated to this as well even though it's the BBC.

I can also *highly* recommend Slashdotters have a dig through the TLS archive for other interviews ; it's full of incredible scientists talking about their life and work. Proper fascinating. For my money I can reccommend the first three as starting points Paul Nurse, Stephen Pinker, Jocelyn Bell-Burnell.

An extra special mention goes to the interview with Molly Stephens. She is doing the most incredible things that blew my mind when I heard the interview. Not only that but she's assembled a really unusual collection of people with skills across so many different fields to look at the one goal in a the pragmatic way that so many organisations fail to. Oh, and she comes across as a genuinely lovely and interesting lady. Wow. I just realised that I have the most immense geek crush on her. I hope she doesn't read Slashdot... Actually, if you do, fancy a drink? :-D

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:15 · Score: 1

They're actually not different to me when it comes to things like this. As a human, you're biased to believe that humans are better (special snowflakes), and so you believe it's objective, but in reality it is not. I have no problems with human cloning.

What about clones as spare body parts by detain · 2012-12-20 22:22 · Score: 1

If we can build clones then we should be able to start using them to grow spare organs and limbs for people that need transplants or are injured. Does a clone have a soul?

--
http://interserver.net/

Re:What about clones as spare body parts by pev · 2012-12-20 22:52 · Score: 1

Interestingly, see my previous post about the TLS podcast. Listen to the interview with Molly Stephens and then reconsider whether that's such an economical approach...!

More interested in organs cloning by Pecisk · 2012-12-20 22:25 · Score: 1

I'm more interested (and what seems also much closer target, some research promise it in next 5 years) that you can clone tissue, kidney, etc. in laboratory. That would make much bigger impact on society.

For creating an offspring better try sex. Much funier expierence.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!

Re:More interested in organs cloning by slashmojo · 2012-12-21 20:33 · Score: 1

For creating an offspring better try sex. Much funier expierence.
Dude, this is slashdot.. ;)

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:33 · Score: 0

They're actually not different to me when it comes to things like this. As a human, you're biased to believe that humans are better (special snowflakes), and so you believe it's objective, but in reality it is not. I have no problems with human cloning.

Why, that's insightful!!! Let's give the animals the right to vote, why should only the special snowflakes have this right to influence the environ they spend most life in?

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:39 · Score: 0

..."Imagine finding out you were a replacement." ...nooo here comes hollywood!!!

Immorality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:39 · Score: 0

This is great. Doctors better start practicing brain transplants. I want to make sure they have perfected this so nothing will go wrong in my new body.

If you could clone yourself by prasadsurve · 2012-12-20 22:47 · Score: 1

wouldn't you re-engineer your genetic makeup to be better (stronger, smarter, more handsome)?

Wouldn't you want to be the best you can be (with your own genes) a la Gattaca?

Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:51 · Score: 0

Forget cloning. Where's my FLYING CAR?

Re:Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 07:14 · Score: 0

Your clone stole it.

Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:54 · Score: 0

So I finally can get a younger twin, I always wanted one.

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 22:56 · Score: 0

They're actually not different to me when it comes to things like this. As a human, you're biased to believe that humans are better (special snowflakes), and so you believe it's objective, but in reality it is not. I have no problems with human cloning.

I'm guessing you don't really think much in terms of other people's feelings do you? The problem here is how people will treat the clone of a dead child (vs. how they will treat the clone of a random person vs. how they will treat a child created a conventional way).. Maybe you consider yourself some sort of enlightened individual who will treat a clone just the same as any other child, but you need to realize that the very people who would be motivated to clone their dead child would most certainly not. (Otherwise, they'd just make one the conventional way, barring exceptional cases involving low fertility.)

Those differing expectations are very important for the mental health and development of the child. Animals are less likely to be harmed by the difference than humans are due to differences in mental capacity and development. There is a whole different set of expectations placed up on a clone of your dog vs. a clone of your human child. Inflicting such a set of burdens on a child is exceptionally cruel and harmful to their development as an individual.

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:04 · Score: 0

A dog is an animal. A human is an animal. See there! Another ethical issue vanished into vapor. But, but, but, but, it hurts me to think of myself as an animal. I mean i don't want to be like a dead dog rotting at the side of the road.
Fear driving reasoning doesn't work very well.

In related news, water is wet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:10 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure anyone who took a biology class knew that cloning humans would be possible within 50 years when Dolly was cloned...humans are mammals too. Anyway thanks for the update Captain Obvious!

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by dohzer · 2012-12-20 23:15 · Score: 1

What would be the big deal about being a replacement?
It's not like you'd be a robot without free-will.

Perhaps within 50 years it will be possible... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:23 · Score: 0

... to make reliable predictions 50 years in the future.

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by drinkypoo · 2012-12-20 23:32 · Score: 1

You think it's tough on a kid finding out he's adopted? Imagine finding out you were a replacement.

I already know someone raising a kid like that. He neglected his original son because the mother's family drove him away, and he let them. His first son committed suicide and left a note fingering him. Now he's got another son and has actually said he feels like the spirit of the dead son is in this one. You don't even need a clone for this. This is not to suggest that we should use cloning to attempt to revive the dead, however; indeed, I left this comment to support your position. There's kids getting it bad enough out there now over this very issue, it would be dramatically worse if they were made from the very same DNA and looked identical.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by drinkypoo · 2012-12-20 23:34 · Score: 1

yes, humans are different when it comes to things like this, and the ethical questions that must be answered are a superset of those we must answer for other animals.

It's true, but not in the way I infer from your comment. It's not that cloning humans is different from their perspective, it's that it's different to the living. It's how we feel about it that defines morality. Well, how we decide we feel about it in the aggregate, anyway, and the majority.

Cloning the dead seems like a special mistake that can only lead to stagnation and the repetition of mistakes (and possibly redundancy.) We need human cloning for making body parts! It would be nice to just clone the parts, though.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

subject by Legion303 · 2012-12-20 23:42 · Score: 1

"He said that parents who lose their children to tragic accidents might be able to clone replacements in the next few decades."

But this wouldn't be the same child. The original will have still died in the accident. It's like replacing your daughter's dead puppy and naming it "Fido 2." Even she knows it's not a real substitute.

Re:subject by morgauxo · 2012-12-21 02:38 · Score: 1

No, it isn't like Fido2. Fido2 probably neither understands or cares that he's a replacement. A child with a parent attempting to force him/her into the mold of a dead sibbling would probably be quite damaged psychologically. That's not to mention what happens when the kid realizes that is the only reason he/she exists. Anyone who does it for this reason is a horrible parent worthy of neither child.

Claims by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 23:47 · Score: 0

"I'll be dead in 50 year" claims the 73 year old Sir John Gurdon

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by jimbolauski · 2012-12-21 00:31 · Score: 1

Right, cloning pets is completely different because... pets aren't humans! Humans are special snowflakes, so you shouldn't clone them!

The physiological implications on the clone would be a huge burden, unless you are naive to think that being told you are not unique and just a copy of something unique wouldn't be a serious mind fuck. Cats on the other hand do not care if they are a clone as long as they can sit on a warm laptop they are happy.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 00:32 · Score: 0

Pets may not be humans, but the mental leap it would take to want to clone a lost pet (assuming the person understands that cloning isn't the same as "bringing back to life") is exactly the same as somebody who would want to clone a lost child. Such a person must consider their pet more like replaceable livestock than a unique member of the family. Clearly, if an individual (human or animal) is truly loved and respected for who he or she is, then a family member wouldn't even consider such a thing. Only if the individual is considered replaceable would a person go through with that.

Hopefully this means therapeutic cloning by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2012-12-21 00:39 · Score: 3, Funny

So an infection killed your kidney? You need a transplant but we'll just create a new working clone of your kidney from almost any cell in your body and implant that.(Hopefully no rejection but MD's here can tell me if that's true or not.) Hey, got cancer? Cloning may help with that. Clone yourself a whole new body that doesn't have a brain and implant your brain in that. (As long as the cancer hasn't metastasize into your brain this would theoretically work. Yeah, I know reattaching all the nerves and blood vessels is going to be a bitch.) Hell you could even cure some genetic diseases with this. You have a genetic defect that makes your liver not work? Take your dna, fix the issue then clone a good liver from that. (Yes, I know a lot of this is going to be difficult but in theory a lot of this should work.)

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.

Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ? by GameboyRMH · 2012-12-21 00:47 · Score: 1

You've been geezer-rolled :-P

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

first Human Clone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 00:53 · Score: 0

I alway thought GW Bush was the first Human clone, Failed attempt anyway, BTW of there admitting 50 years that does mean its already been done

Getting cloned is an honour by gay358 · 2012-12-21 00:54 · Score: 1

What is so tough about that? I wouldn't be against cloning myself or being a clone myself -- although I don't insist of getting cloned. In my opinion, being a clone or a person who is cloned, is an honour. It is a proof that you are so special person that there are people want to clone you and not some disgusting person that nobody likes.

Re:Getting cloned is an honour by mcgrew · 2012-12-21 06:56 · Score: 1

In my opinion, being a clone or a person who is cloned, is an honour. It is a proof that you are so special person that there are people want to clone you and not some disgusting person that nobody likes.

If you need someone else to validify your existance, you really have a bad case of low self-esteem.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Possible Evil: Pageant Moms by RobertLTux · 2012-12-21 00:57 · Score: 1

i could see a pagent mom cloning her "doll" N times just to have that many extra chances to WIN AT ALL COSTS

Krystal 2 breaks an ankle before a competition= replace with Krystal 3
K1 ODs on her meds= call and have a new clone whipped up

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:Possible Evil: Pageant Moms by morgauxo · 2012-12-21 02:34 · Score: 1

It would have to be all at once, and then hide the fact that multiples exist. It wouldn't be any different than pageant mom lucking out and having twins. 'whipping up' a new clone means getting a newborn baby... 9 months later. I don't think the judges can be stalled that long.
Re:Possible Evil: Pageant Moms by RobertLTux · 2012-12-21 02:47 · Score: 1

im assuming that a new clone can be ready in say a couple months
and yes the small fact that Krystal has N dupes would need to be hidden

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:Possible Evil: Pageant Moms by morgauxo · 2012-12-31 02:52 · Score: 1

I don't believe anybody is working on any kind of technology that can do that. Outside of science fiction, if such technology ever exists it is going to be a really long time from now. Real world cloning today just creates an embryo. If Krystal is already in pageants then she is how many years old? I don't think any judge is going to mistake her embryonic twin for her.

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 00:59 · Score: 0

Right, cloning pets is completely different because... pets aren't humans!

Not trying to come across as some kind of blubbering sentimentalist, but yeah, that's exactly it. I wouldn't call humans "special snowflakes", but yes, humans are different when it comes to things like this, and the ethical questions that must be answered are a superset of those we must answer for other animals.

How are humans different? If you don't believe in things like a "soul", then homo sapiens are just another species of mammals. We have bones, muscles, nerves, and neurons—just like a cat or dog.

At most one can argue that self-awareness makes us special in some way, but from a biological point of view there's no difference, and I don't see how one can argue against human cloning from a strictly materialistic point of view.

Identical twins are genetical copies by gay358 · 2012-12-21 01:01 · Score: 1

As far as I know, identical twins don't typically have any serious mental problems even though they are genetically almost perfect copies. And many identical twins think they have very special and valuable relationship with their twin, which no other person can have.

Re:Identical twins are genetical copies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 02:01 · Score: 0

Yeah, special and valueable relationship with a dead person(in clone's case). Wonderfull!
How about with a living person? Would you want to have a copy of you, but it's not you? And you are siblings ony genetical, but no common memory and experience. - Could be a total stranger to you.
You know, twins have the special relationship because they live(almost all the time) together from birth until someone has a spouse or something.
How special is their relationship if one has something and the other not?
How do you think one would feel, if their twin sibling has a succesful career and the other is struggling day by day?

Not transferring memories can be desireable by gay358 · 2012-12-21 01:09 · Score: 1

Sometimes it is even desireable that clone wouldn't have the same memories. If the cloned person has had many traumatic events in life, it might be good idea not even try to transfer them somehow to the clone and just let the clone to have better life without all those negative memories.

Re:Not transferring memories can be desireable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 02:51 · Score: 0

What a brave new world that would be.

try ten years by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:11 · Score: 0

...yes ten years.

Worthless..... by Lumpy · 2012-12-21 01:16 · Score: 1

Until they figure out the Consciousness transfer system having a much younger me is pretty worthless. They figure out how to grow another me and then I can download into the new body... I'm interested.... until then leave me in the cryo chamber, I haven't finished my conversation with Mister Disney...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Worthless..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 04:10 · Score: 0

Until they figure out the Consciousness transfer system having a much younger me is pretty worthless. They figure out how to grow another me and then I can download into the new body... I'm interested.... until then leave me in the cryo chamber, I haven't finished my conversation with Mister Disney...
Forget "another me". I want a better me--taller, faster reflexes, perfect vision, perfect teeth, perfect symmetry.

Inbreeding is much worse thing by gay358 · 2012-12-21 01:19 · Score: 1

Cloning doesn't increase the risk of getting genetical diseases the same way as does inbreeding between close relatives. However, current cloning techniques can increase some other genetical risks, but techniques can be improved and many other things increase risk of genetical diseases as well -- like getting a child when you are nearer the age of 40 instead being about 20 years old.

Re:Inbreeding is much worse thing by mcgrew · 2012-12-21 05:00 · Score: 1

TFA itself says that most clones have terrible genetic diseases.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Possible in Fifty Years! by khelms · 2012-12-21 01:37 · Score: 1

Damn near anything could be said to be "possible in fifty years"! Why is this news?

Re:Possible in Fifty Years! by avandesande · 2012-12-21 05:53 · Score: 1

Not to mention it could be done in five if scientists were actively pursuing this. Really this is more of a prediction about a change in morals.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Cloning is not even unethical... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:39 · Score: 0

It is pointless. What's the use? Twins as a fashion statement?

For my part, I don't want another me. How boring would that be??

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:44 · Score: 0

What would be the big deal about being a replacement?

The preconceptions of the parents. Nobody should start life tied down with baggage like that, with parents that were not able to love you for who you are (in which case they could have gotten just another child) but for who somebody else was.

Minime by AndyKron · 2012-12-21 02:06 · Score: 1

Can I clone myself and stay home from work?

Re:Minime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 02:23 · Score: 0

What if the clone hates work too?
Re:Minime by Smallpond · 2012-12-21 02:48 · Score: 1

Michael Keaton already did this.

Spoken like a true sociopath... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 02:11 · Score: 0

" He said that parents who lose their children to tragic accidents might be able to clone replacements in the next few decades."

Yes, because that'll be so much better than just having another child, and even having another child will in no way make up for losing a child.

But what do you expect from the sort of scum who torture animals all day for a living? (Or for FUN, the pay is just a bonus for these sickos).

Re:Spoken like a true sociopath... by Smallpond · 2012-12-21 02:46 · Score: 1

I expect the first use will be rich people who are either childless or don't like their kids. They'll be cloning themselves. It will make some interesting legal battles.
Re:Spoken like a true sociopath... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 04:31 · Score: 0

Imagine the custody battle after the divorce. Does each parent get the children that look like themself? Do you want to raise a child that is a clone of your EX? Wow.
Re:Spoken like a true sociopath... by Smallpond · 2012-12-21 10:46 · Score: 1

Imagine the custody battle after the divorce. Does each parent get the children that look like themself? Do you want to raise a child that is a clone of your EX? Wow.
The real battles will be in trusts and estates.

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by TuringTest · 2012-12-21 02:15 · Score: 1

The only objective fact is that at the heat death of the universe, nothing matters. For everything else until that moment, human opinions are important; so I don't mind having a few subjective beliefs in consideration to some degree, even if they're biased toward my fellow humans.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.

Clone Wars by Infiniti2000 · 2012-12-21 02:28 · Score: 1

So, Clone Wars start in 60 years?

Cloning will not significantly increase population by morgauxo · 2012-12-21 02:31 · Score: 2

I was going to post this as a response to a comment but it was already getting burried and I bet plenty of others wrote or thought the same as the parent. Cloning will not increase the population! Whenever cloning comes up the 'there are too many people for Earth to support and yet I am not going to kill myself' people feel the need to chime in.

Apparently many people read cloning and see factories full of vats growing thousands or millions of people like something out of Star Wars. Real cloning, as it is likely to exist any time this century is just another way to make an embryo. It's an alternative to conception. The fetus still has to spend the same time inside a mother's womb. The mother goes through alll the same discomforts of pregnancy. If she is willing to go through that for a clone she would probably have gotten knocked up anyway.

Yes, there are potential downsides to cloning. Less genetic diversity, kids growing up being expected to continue their dead gene donor's life although they are not the same person (talk about being in your older siblings shadow). Then there are darker themes like cloning a whole person to get a body part... Population increase? Why would that happen?

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 02:36 · Score: 0

Where does this "blame the boomers" crap come from? We grew up in a US fighting two wars, dealing with equality issues, and facing government suppression of civil rights. Sound familiar? We got out and protested, boycotted and smoked a lot of pot. Since then we just are not willing to put up with as much crap as you. To us, you just look like wimpy slackers.

Immigration is not a problem, period. If you believe that it is, you are probably some asshole who thinks 'Mericans are better than anbody else, so they deserve a job rather than a Mexican who's worked hard all their life.

You're blaming fiscal policy on us? That we are forcing those poor rich people and corporations to give up their hard-earned dollars that they made themselves and not by exploiting poor people? Pu-leeze. The gap in income between the rich and the poor has GROWN since the 60's. We're hardly forcing giveaways to the poor. If anything, we should be trying for more government aid.

Cloning is not unethical by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 03:08 · Score: 0

All humans are unique, but cloning would not change that. Even if a clone is physically 100% identical to another human, it is not just the physical attributes that makes humans unique. What differentiates one human from another is also the experiences and memories. Since a clone cannot occupy the same physical space as the original human, it would definitely have different experiences and memories. Also, since experiences shape how humans develop, it is possible for the clone to develop to have completely different beliefs and values than the original human.

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by lxs · 2012-12-21 03:12 · Score: 3, Informative

Where does this "blame the boomers" crap come from?

You robbed our pension funds, you burned our oil, you destroyed our system of education, you listened to shitty music, you preached love but practiced greed and you keep on making documentaries about how wonderful you were.

Sincerely,
Generation X

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 04:10 · Score: 0

Oh. So you can''t defend the previous accusations so you just make up new ones?

You think the boomers put conservatives in office that think "corporations are people too"? Its the boomers who lost all their pensions. Younger gen are all on portable 401Ks that we fought for. How much have you lost from your pension? I'm surprised you even know what the word means.

Destroyed education? Why, you feel especially stoopid today? Cite some evidence that your book learning is any worse than mine was.

I'll put Jimi Hendrix up against Justin Bieber any day.

I hate that "Love generation" crap, but I have to concede that there's a lot of it. Good point on the documentaries.

I want mind uploading by asm2750 · 2012-12-21 04:25 · Score: 1

I would love to be able to upload my conscious to a digital medium and then into a clone cybernetic body later, kinda like Ghost in the Shell does it.

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 04:31 · Score: 0

We learned it from you, dad! Okay?! We learned it from watching you!

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by lxs · 2012-12-21 04:57 · Score: 1

Hey, you guys invented the generation gap. Doesn't feel so great to be on the receiving end does it?

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 05:05 · Score: 0

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

Sorry. We didn't invent the generation gap. Maybe there is a problem with your education.

Who says by kilodelta · 2012-12-21 05:33 · Score: 1

It hasn't already been done in a lab somewhere. I mean the basic IVF setup could be used to do it. Now couple this with Kurzweils Singularit theory and you'll be able to have clones in stasis, then when you get old and gray, you can just stuff your consciousness into a new body. Cool!

We are fast food chain from Korea and we want this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 05:35 · Score: 0

We are a nice fast food chain from Korea and we are very interesting in cloning humans.

We want our workers to be happy with us and clones might be slightly modify to enjoy working for us.

Also I am a big fan of Doona Bae and we can make our waitress looking just like her!

Application of Clarke's first law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 05:40 · Score: 0

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Too painful by Theovon · 2012-12-21 05:51 · Score: 1

If I lost a child, I think the last thing I'd want is a constant reminder of a tragedy. Maybe we'd have other kids. But making a clone is not the same as restoring a backup copy. It's NOT the same child! And just imagine being that clone. It's bad enough for younger children that live in the shadows of their older siblings. Now imagine being expected to show the same behaviors and knowledge as someone you've never met. This would be a totally unreasonable amount of pressure on the child. They'd be scarred for life.

This idea of "replacing" a child by cloning is the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

Now, there may be some narcissists out there who want to make clones of themselves, but that's altogether a different matter.

Also, say you have an animal that was spayed or neutered and you discover that they would have made good breeding stock, then you could produce a clone for that purpose. But no one is under the illusion that this is the SAME animal. It just shares approximately the same genes.

On average, people are toxic. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 05:57 · Score: 0

On average, people are toxic.

So no, the extended family is no better than the nuclear family. Given statistical probabilities living with more related adults probably increases the opportunities for child abuse.

And adults are more likely to defend other adults and ignore children in that situation. In a nuclear family the closest relationship is to the spouse, second to children. In an extended family that is less likely to happen, and in fact may be the minority situation because the parents of the adult children with children of their own will wield an unhealthy amount of influence.

Been there, done that. On average, people are toxic.

ironic captcha: embraced

Preordering? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 06:45 · Score: 0

All right, i'm gonna be in my eighties then, but, can i preorder 12 of the Theron-Template (prometheus, not monster edition)...?

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by Quirkz · 2012-12-21 06:56 · Score: 1

An attribution and date would have gone a long way to helping your point there. I assume that's an ancient quote, but maybe you read it in the paper this morning. I seem to recall another one from Roman times that concluded with "And everyone is writing a book," which I thought was a hilarious way to wrap up the condemnation.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay

Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by triffid_98 · 2012-12-21 07:41 · Score: 1

Sometimes dead is better.
The person you put up there ain't the person that comes back. It may look like that person, but it ain't that person.

What's so new about it ethically? by robi5 · 2012-12-21 09:23 · Score: 1

Even now, there may be an identical twin zygote in a freezer from a former in vitro fertilization that can be thawed. So while the accessibility of this option can be increased by cloning, it wouldn't be a new sort of ethical problem, it would perhaps be a new societal issue.

I think it is closer than that. by morethanapapercert · 2012-12-21 10:15 · Score: 1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but researchers have been successfully cloning whole mammals like cats and sheep for some time now. It's been nine years since Dolly the sheep was cloned. I am not a biologist, but it seems to me that if we can clone one mammal, then the same broad set of techniques can be used to clone pretty much any other animal. If I recall correctly, to achieve the success of Dolly, the research team had to go through many, many attempts before achieving success, a failure rate which might not be acceptable for human cloning.

That assumes you are trying to clone a whole being of course. Cloning of organs or partial cloning of tissues should be rather easier to achieve.

As far as I'm concerned, human cloning can be treated as an accomplished fact, meaning it is now high time we started drafting ethical guidelines and legislative actions to limit the types of cloning we do. Cloning a new organ for you, or creating a clone you and your spouse wish to raise as your child is OK in my book (and most others I think) but creating an entire clone so you can harvest multiple organs or perform a brain transplant is, to me, a heinous and incredibly callous act. It requires that an individual be brought into this world solely for the purpose of being murdered and used as spare parts.

Yeah, sure, we don't know how to achieve that, not yet. But it is far from being science fiction at this point. Achieving that capability is just a matter of time.

--
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj

Branding opportunity by PacRim+Jim · 2012-12-21 16:14 · Score: 1

Imagine beautiful young women selling clones of themselves. Talk about branding. I'll take a Marilyn and a...

Me now, me now by Czubaka · 2012-12-21 18:10 · Score: 0

Oh please. I'm too old to wait 50 years. Clone me now and others in 50 years, ok? Thank you.

I believe it can be done TODAY by Grand+Facade · 2012-12-21 18:32 · Score: 1

it will however take 50 years to clear the path.....

--
Rick B.

Replacement Parts / Body by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 23:35 · Score: 0

I think clones would be great. Simply figure out how to grow it with, say, only a brainstem and no conscioness or higher functions, and voila! Transplant my brain into the new body, if that ever becomes possible. Otherwise, use the parts for replacements. No mind, no ethical quandry whatsoever; if you have an ethical quandry with this, then you've looked really hard to invent one.

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by syleishere · 2012-12-23 07:57 · Score: 1

I assume your about 36 to make such a comment. 1) oil: welcome to george bush presidency, with the war and such, there was more demand than supply, not that supply wasn't there, but raising costs to meet the demand was an added benefit for bush's 60% oil stock portfolio, to think some people go to jail for insider trading unless your a president! 2) music: that is uncalled for. I listen to music from every different genre, country, era, language on daily basis, I think your just narrow minded here. 3) love and greed: so your underpaid high school teachers preached to you out of love but because they accepted a paycheck they are greedy? 4) documentaries: compared to all the youtube videos of how cool the X generation is? Boomers and X generation are old now, the next generation also hates both of those generations music tastes, after all we are suppose to hate our parents music so to separate us independently from them and be "cool" amongst our friends. Not one is better than another, its all a lesson in life experience.

Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-25 02:44 · Score: 0

It's interesting that what gen X and the Milennials believe are lies or distorted and easy to refute, but they believe them anyway. Let's look for the source:

Education soaks up a lot of money. Who stands to gain by pushing the lie that education is broken or worse than it used to be? Maybe the ones pushing to divert the funds to charter and religious schools?
Greed Boomers robbed their own pension funds, trashed the price of their own houses and are now retiring broke. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs and AIG employees made huge profits and want to blame someone other than Wall St raiders. Mitt Romney is a boomer and personifies Wall St. greed, but this behavior could be any age. Its due to the breakdown of regulations on corporate behavior during the Reagan-Bush years.
Lost all the jobs to India and China. This happened during the boomer years so its blamed on the boomers. Sorry. Can't go back to that US manufacturing economy. The technology boom and deregulation of trade created worldwide markets so now capital, jobs and investment is freed to go anywhere in the world that gives the best profits. I guess you can blame ending the war in Southeast Asia and opening China on the boomers, but the rest is unintended consequences.

Summary: When someone says blame it all on the boomers ask why they are saying that and take it with a grain of salt.

erroneus/john b wilcox, 2 questions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 14:05 · Score: 0

When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, and spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

erroneus/john b wilcox your fat = problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 14:07 · Score: 0

When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, & spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too?? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

erroneus/john b wilcox: extreme fat = creepy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 14:09 · Score: 0

Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, & spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

erroneus/john b wilcox: no woman would have you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 14:11 · Score: 0

Forget sex - When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork + spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

erroneus/john b wilcox - you're too fat for sex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 14:14 · Score: 0

Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, & spoon a shovel http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

Slashdot Mirror

Human Cloning Possible Within 50 Years, Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Claims

233 comments