/sci/ - Science & Math

it's possible, but you're playing god and that is frowned upon. that's also why we don't have and will never have human cloning despite the fact that we have the technology to do it right now.

>>5168296

>>5168296
I'd rather not make my own thread in regards to this, but I don't see how 'playing god' is a justifiable defence in opposition of creating something like another person.

I don't understand the argument against cloning at all to be totally frank (though I'm from a 3rd world shithole, so I'm unfamiliar with westernised thinking). 'Human life is sacred' is bullshit - we kill others every single day with not a hint of remorse yet the minute a perfectly healthy genetic copy of another man is created - OMG THAT DOES NOT LINE WIT' MUH' 'MURRIKAN MORALS

>>5168290
a mini sun would solve our energy problems

>>5168296
>will never have

what would make you think that

>>5168309
>we kill others every single day with not a hint of remorse

Speak for yourself. I haven't killed anyone.

>>5168309
By the way, you americans are SO full of shit (christian ones, at least).

'Human life is sacred, love thy neighbour, molest little boys and spout neat little sayings so that we can claim the high moral ground'.

I hope to god there's a shift in conservitard, backwards, nutty thinking not just pertaining to human cloning but to all of Earth's issues. Issues that do not belong in ideological, wizard-fearing, judgement-doing zealouts who believe unproven fiction over proven fact.

>>5168319

>>5168296
>despite the fact that we have the technology to do it right now
Yeah, that really is kinda messed up. I think they should at least allow cloning for people who want spare organs in case anything goes wrong, or for someone with an already failing organ.

>>5168290

CREATE BLACK HOLES YOU SAY?

OKAY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-OatBpJq3E&t=2m06s

>>5168325
Lel, that did come off as teenedger as fuck, but my point still stands.

They're going to be cloning the mammoth soon.

Think it's possible for them to clone a dinosaur? Or is the dna too old?

>>5168319

You do realize that molestation rates among clergy are comparable to the general male population and much lower than those of other men who are put into positions where they are around young children all day, including school teachers?

>>5168337
no shit sherlock
there's more people in the general population than there are in churches.

that's also why the "YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET INTO AN ACCIDENT ON YOUR WAY TO THE AIRPORT THAN YOU ARE IN A PLANE!" argument is fucking stupid

>>5168346

Do you understand what the term rate means? It's a fucking ratio you idiot.

>>5168354
>backpedaling

>>5168361

What? If you take the number of priests who are child molesters and divide it by the number of priests, you get the same number as if you divide the number of male child molesters in by the number of males. You get a bigger number if you dived the number of male school teachers who are child molesters by the number of male school teachers.

>>5168366

You get a bigger number if you divided*

>>5168346
>that's also why the "YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET INTO AN ACCIDENT ON YOUR WAY TO THE AIRPORT THAN YOU ARE IN A PLANE!" argument is fucking stupid

How is that stupid? Cars are more dangerous and get into more accidents per outing than airplanes.

>>5168336

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

>>5168337
Remember, it isn't just about rate, but about the implicit respect, authority, and position that clergy are afforded.
Like today's stories about the Boy Scouts.

We expect to send children off to be taught by people who, explicitly, will not abuse them.
Because they will be out of our care, because they are authorities.

What I'm saying is the rate doesn't have to be higher than the general populace -- it is expected to be ZERO!

>>5169182

The rate absolutely should be zero, I agree with you there. Interestingly enough, the rate is actually lower among catholic priests than many protestant groups, and is much much lower among any religious official than among school teachers. I'm just saying that the whole "priests are pedophiles" notion that so many people ascribe to is absolute nonsense.

Creating a star is basically creating sustainable fusion and if we did that we would have enough energy to sustain the world indefenatly. And a mini planet is just a rock.

Back to OP:
>Is it possible for man to create planets and stars?
Not really.
Technically, sure -- it would just take immense effort and time.
But practically, it's as silly a project as it is a question.

>I mean, we can create black holes.
Nope, not at all. Sorry you think so.
Physicists believe they can create very short-term, very tiny, nearly abstracted singularities -- not even proven yet.
But a tiny singularity is nothing like a black hole in space.

>Why wouldn't we be able to create mini planets and a mini sun and stars for the planets?

Ask yourself this: how hard do we have to work to move a large hill?
That requires almost the lowest levels of technology, but humans would have to work many years to do it.

Now scale that up, and put the project in space, where you have no air, no ground to stand on, and only the smallest of tools which you take up on tiny spacecraft.
Ask yourself if we've ever moved an asteroid, a rock just a couple miles across, anywhere at all.

Now, let's forget about the immensity of piling several trillion of those together, and ask where -- how far do you think humans have gone outside our own solar system?
is there a place to build this project?

How about this: is there a REASON to build this project, ever?

>>5169201
>And a mini planet is just a rock.

'Just' -- are you pretending that because it's material is familiar, creating a planet would be trivial?

OP was asking about creating a mini-solar system, and I haven't even gotten to the issues about making small planets or stars from a gravity standpoint -- now you're reducing the word planet to 'just a rock.'

help me out, here!

>>5168319
A sudden political shift to the Liberal spectrum won't fix any of these issues, however. Hell, it will actually worsen them. Nuclear power is one of the great Sins of Liberalism (Below belief in Genetics and Hard Work), for example, and any biofuel that isn't Soy is unclean and impure.

However, the idea that there is something inherently sacred about life is not a bad idea at all. Rather, the problem lies not in viewing life as sacred, but viewing anything that tampers with life as unholy. To dive into "transhumanism", or genetic engineering, or all those such things, with reckless abandon would create more problems than it would solve. A degree of caution must be advised.

You really need to define the word "mini" don't want another Pluto incident own our hands.

>>5169207

A black hole is simply an object whose swarzschild radius is larger than it's actual radius. We could probably create one in a particle accelerator.

>>5169283
I assume OP hasn't any awareness that masses need to surpass a minimum to become a planet or Sun and have orbits that would be useful.

But, hell, he thought someone making a singularity meant that someone could make a black hole -- never realizing that if it were that kind of 'black hole,' there would be no planet to hear about it.

>>5169312
You are speaking in mathematical definitions, though,
where the context is very obviously colloquial usage:

it seems to me someone made a claim about a singularity, and the journalist or OP made a mental connection to the singularity estimation of black holes in space.
Thus, OP went from the statement about black holes to building planets, which are, of course, much, much smaller than black holes in space.

See? for OP, none of this was particle physics or high-energy physics -- it's CONSTRUCTION.
we have to explain the difference, and comments about Schwarzchild radii aren't going to get there.