/sci/ - Science & Math

Because we're on /sci/.

I think it's a morally complicated matter, and also we don't have the technology nor the means to do it.

we know that we can and we are.

we need better humans, not more humans

>>2638430

So we can't so the same process we did to a sheep to a human?

>>2638433

Thanks for the correction. *better humans

>>2638430
We have the knowledge, we understand the concepts, we know how to do it, we know how to create it;
We just don't have the funds.

There were 82 horibly deformed freaks of nature before Dolly came out right, and then she lived to half the normal age of a domestic sheep.

That's some crazy shit when it's humans.

Honestly, I see no wrong in doing clone testing in humans (even if crazy mutants are made that have to be killed). However, it really is not "morally" acceptable by the masses and government officials. It's seen as tabbo and stepping into "God"'s territory.

I'm against it. Before anyone says "luddite," I'm a transhumanist. That's just about the opposite.

A cloned human is a human just the same as any other, deserving the same level of respect and self-determination. Individuals would be cloned from a "parent" known for this-or-that notable skill and the cloned person would be saddled with all sorts of expectations. There's nothing inherently wrong with cloning, but there's something wrong with the strong temptation, evident whenever anyone talks about the issue, to pre-determine another person's path in life based on what you presume about that person.

>>2638445
it took a lot of tries to get a Dolly that actually worked. It was a pretty big batch of sheep clone things that didn't actually work, or died early. It would take a lot of effort and a lot of dead human clones to figure out how to clone humans effectively, something that is morally ambiguous.

cause humans suck!!

Why do morals keep popping up? Why don't people just butt out of something that people want to do for the greater good and accept it? A project to fund a human clone would either be funded by the government ( only situation where they COULD protest ) or funded privately. Disposing of the so called " freaks of nature " wouldn't be so hard either. Yu just need to classify what you've cloned as " human " before you're barred from killing it.

>>2638540
But what positive effects could the human race have from it? It also just feels wrong, or at least it does to me.

Could someone explain to me what would be the practical benefits of human cloning? I understand the point of cloning specific body parts for medical reasons. But, the whole idea of cloning a person seems pointless and immoral in the sense of the trial and error process we would have to go through in order to create one.

Watch the movie "Moon" and you will think of this whole subject quite differently.

I don't like the idea.

>>2638563

- Clone humans with " desirable traits. "
- Eventually clone a " perfect " human.
- Clone humans for labor.
- Clone people who came up with incredible ideas to process mankind further.
- etc

>>2638563
>human race

>implying blacks and whites are one race.

>implying niggers are not a seperate race

>>2638591
>Clone people who came up with incredible ideas to process mankind further.

When cloning, the "child" will inherit the complete gene-set of the parent, but not neccessarily its mind, its personality, or its outlook on life. In a nutshell, it'll have the same body, but not the same mind.

>>2638630

>place in like environment

>>2638635
>let's put a cloned einstein in 1920s austria

>>2638649

>implying we cant pull that off

>Why aren't we cloning humans yet?

Because:
a) Our cloning tech is still in infancy.
b) We don't have funds nor public support to do it.
c) We don't really have a reason to do it.

Ad c: I mean if we suddenly would need moar people
cloning still would be worse option because clones take the same amount of time to mature and are much more expensive than normal people.

>>2638630
not even the same body, only an extraordinary likeness at a young age, and then about the same likeness as a sibling later on in life

the way that the body develops is more complicated that "here are your genes, this is what you will look like"

>>2638635
>place in like environment
No such thing

>>2638668
>a) Our cloning tech is still in infancy.
well, yes. but we still are well beyond capable of cloning a human.
>b) We don't have funds nor public support to do it.
fucking luddites.
>c) We don't really have a reason to do it.
it would solve several biological questions such as genetic memory and the heritability of intelligence versus the randomness that seemingly emerges.

one day, and they probably already did somewhere, someone will take the next step. why not us? why not now?

I think we do have the means to do this, but a clone would not be a clone for very long. Identical twins are essentially clones raised in a very similar environment, but no twins have difficulty differentiating between herself and her twin. They may, or may not, be similar to each other in many ways (behaviour, preferenses, and life choices), but they are not the same person. Our concept of a clone as someone that goes around, having ones mind, is not real.

I'm Currently going into the genetic engineering field to do learn how to do this specifically... I will have your clone I promise

>>2638720
>>2638720

Same guy, and to answer someone's question even if we did create a clone they would have a genetic life of however old the person you took the DNA from is. They are currently working on telomeres which shorten as you get older which scientist believe is the reason for aging. They are currently working on a project and using enzymes to stop the process on rats and it looks as if it is working on the rats by reversing it's age.

>>2638421
>>2638421
>implying china hasn't been doing this for a decade

>Why aren't we cloning humans yet?
how would that give me money or make me happier?

>>2638696
>Intelligence, or, why be ppl smarter than others?

Intelligence is a ludicrously narrow concept devised by some idiot at the beginning of the last century.
It's never been properly defined, and I don't foresee how it will be in the next hundred years.

So, you want to figure this out by taking the environment out of the picture right?

Well, you can't.

First of all, our ability to adapt to the environment, and even to adapt our environment to serve our needs, is an important part of what we would call intelligence.
Secondly, we can't raise clones in a box, so there is a limit to how much of the environment you can remove.

I'm gonna resurrect Einstein from preserved remains of his body that have been kept for this reason. I'm studying biology and chemistry atm. I'll go to medical school and I can make you a pretty good guarantee that I'll get you some clones. We'll clone people with IQ's >130 (without regard to race or any other factors) and have a humane version of eugenics.

>>2638737
That's interesting, has this been published?
Could you give me a link/doi?

>>2638802
>>2638802

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

here is the Wikipedia I have a book on it but I don't know where it is or what it''s called

>>2638820
right, well, I know what telomerase is, I just hadn't heard about this study.
Is this the one?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature09603

>>2638859
Besides, there are many other factors of aging, like the granulation of Nissl bodies in neuronal cells.

>>2638788

Sex slave clone.

>>2638859
>>2638859

yeah, that looks pretty accurate

>>2638871
We can do better than just clones, we could figure out what genes give good sex, and then we could, like, genetically engineer a perfect sex-slave, grown to the customers preferences. Big tits? no problem, small tits? no problem. Docile? no problem. Dominatrix? no problem.

>>2638914
>>2638914

Yup, That's why i'm going too

I FUCKING LOVE MY FIELD

>>2638901
It's a very interesting study, but it's not really a cure for aging. They made the mice recover from a constructed decease, but they didn't live any longer than the unmodified control. There will probably be a follow-up study (it's probably underway as we speak). It'll be interesting to see what they find.

>>2638470
How about a retard, a cripple or a person just not smart enough to achieve his dream of academic renown? They are all limited, their future is "pre-determined" if you will, not to include that which is impossible for them. A person born with the high intelligence of say, Einstein, would not be limited in this way since having a great mind wouldn't make a future as an athlete impossible.

Take the child of a great mathematician, a good soccer player, celebrity or even a king. Great expectations will be put on all of them because of them probably having high potential. Their parents' mindsets will help to reduce the odds of the other options as they help shape the childs personality. It's the same thing, society trying to pin a person into a role due to them probably being proficient in in, only to a lesser extent.

Now, disregard that shit and think about the "father" being anonymous. Would you still object to human cloning were this the case?

>>2638914
Slavery was outlawed 140 years ago.

Clone R Feynman!

>>2638955
well don't call them slaves then.
Let's see....
Advanced Entertainment Biodroid

>>2638962
Advanced Labor Biodroid. A genetically engineered human who actually ENJOYS working for nothing but meager food and meager shelter, thus eliminating the ethical problems. Just like in "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" (Douglas Adams) where the transgenic cow actually begged to be slaughtered.

>>2638970
This.

>>2638970
>>2638970

I fucking loved that book and the whole series

>>2638901
http://news.discovery.com/human/brooke-greenberg-anti-aging-genetics.html

>>2638737
>if we did create a clone they would have a genetic life of however old the person you took the DNA from is
>WhatTheFuckAmIReading.jpeg

>>2639043
It's not that fucking hard to understand, even if it might be worded poorly. He lives as long as the original person would under the same circumstances.

>>2639043
perhaps he means they would have the same "biological lifespan". and not just the "randomly die at age x" thing

Not a troll.
But couldn't clones be useful for the military if they had a short time before becoming an adult (instead of 18, 6) ala StarWars and have a thirty fourty year life?
If we could do that, that would be the prime candidates for war.

>Why aren't we cloning humans yet?
Why SHOULD we?

Genetic engineering, however...

>Why aren't we cloning humans yet?
Because it's expensive and useless.

>>2639096

read

>>2638591
>>2638871
>>2639094

>>2639094
No.
Human clones would be too expensive to raise, even if you somehow could shorten ontogeny to something like eight years. Simple drones would be much cheaper both to produce and maintain.

>>2638421


because it's better to just clone a pile of organs and mush that we can then harvest

Because if we clone they will have the same exact everything from the person they were cloned from. This could lead to fraud and other crimes. And besides it would cost to much when we can just clone organs and stoof.

>>2639043
i think he means that if you get cloned when your 30 your clone is going to be how do i say this that old i guess. i mean when they become lets say 20 and the main person was cloned at 30 it would be as if he was alive for 50 years.

>>2638591

you cannot "clone" the perfect person by cloning a bunch of people with desirable traits as you are not combining these traits in any way.

As for cloning people that make significant contributions, the process of cloning requires stripping epigenetic information meaning that you could end up with a bumbling retard with the genetics of a genius, but still a bumbling retard. Furthermore, the clones you make will have a significantly shortened lifespan due to shortened telomeres.

>>2638871

Prostitutes are basically the same thing and cheaper.

>>2639094
Except that requires a bunch of stuff besides cloning people.

So, why aren't we cloning people? There is no technical reason; cloning sheep is just as complicated as cloning a person. There is just no reason to clone a person because it is very expensive for no realistic gain.

Selective breeding would be better. Have your sperm and egs analysed, and use the ones that will create the most desirable outcome.

The current method of cloning does nothing but make genetic replicas. Now, if you could genetically engineer humans, and grow the organs individually such that they match those of an adult human after a much shorter period of development before putting them together, that would be much more interesting.

>>2639290
>Furthermore, the clones you make will have a significantly shortened lifespan due to shortened telomeres.
What?
I don't think you know how this works.

>>2638568
I watched the movie because of you. It poses no relevant arguments. go fuck yourself with a rake, dipshit

>>2639518
I don't think you know how it works. Telomeres retain the length of the organism they're cloned from.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16142795
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Telomeres.html

BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED SEX HERP DERP

Why spend millions on something we could do for free.
I'm a chem major and an aspiring scientist and even I know the limits of science. Get away from gods realm

>>2639518
So, I take a genetic sample from someone that has made a major contribution to humanity. I want to clone them from this sample. Due to the process of human cell reproduction, the DNA has shortened telomeres. Unless you have magically found a way to correct this problem without causing cancer. Just look at the sheep clone. It suffered premature aging due to this problem.

>>2639547
I'm an aspiring trollologer and even I know the limits of trolling. Get away from gods realm

>>2639537
Yes, but we're not talking about genetic replication here, we are talking about growing a clone. If the source have short telomers, we can simply extend them.

A scientist in Italy has claimed to have cloned his wife, born in his wife.

However there was no evidence to back this up.

also ethics lol, theyve "broken" science in so many places, Russia still allowed genetic engineering though it is frowned upon by some members of the public

>>2639547
>gods realm

god killed my nan?
god killed my father?

this god, has killed enough with his diseases and "natural causes". With science we can eliminate disease, we stopped the pox' we learnt to stop scurvy. We have come along way, and we still have a long way to go. One day we will "Cure" cancer, one day we will reverse engineer the virus.

This is humanities world, and we should be free to do with it as we see fit, god can stay in his realm.

>>2639606
See the "Magically correct it without causing cancer" statement. Adding random junk to the end of a chromosome would correct this problem, but it could still possibly be transcribed and lead to serious problems. It also significantly ups the already ridiculous costs.

>>2639558
Telomerase can often repair short telomer tails.
Also, Dolly was first-gen tech.
We now have more advanced ways of introducing dna into embryonic cells which cause less damage to the dna.

Also, if all alse fails, there is no reason why we can't clone existing embryonic cells with normal-length telomers.

>>2639651
>Adding random junk
TTAGGG*10K should do it. It's not that hard.