Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rebootedrock

First Post. Cloning

Recommended Posts

I was born rich, to be frozen right before I die. So I can be unfrozen in 1000+ years when everyone is alive, they can keep me from dying, give me youth again, it will all be a OK.

would you really want this, i think you would go crazy if you would be woken up in the year 3000, everything has gone forward so much you prolly wouldn't recocnise(srry for the bad spelling) the world, there would have been so much progress you i think you wouldn't be able to cope with it.

Hey, I think they would be awesome too.. I'd love to see what the world is like in 1k yrs.. Like taking Edison to the world today :)

I'm a big thinker. (of course there's the chance the machine would break or the world would be terribly frightening/violent/non-existent/ect)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea behind Cloning isn't even to make yourself over, it's to use the faster growing Embroynic stem cells, which are pluripotent to create a direct DNA copy of yourself, in which you can use the stem cells to grow yourself a new organ or directly implant the ESC to the body, allowing this would let the stem cell find it's job and grow back the body. In only a few month after a test on a rat the ESC had replaced much (over 50% i believe) of the rat's scarred heart tissue from repeated heart attacks.

 

The Whole mentality, isnt' to create a exact copy of yourself, in which it is a new person yes as it's not DNA that molds you but past experiences as Freud had said. We hope to be able to help create implants the body will not refuse, and help people with brain diseases, where the ESC could grow back those neurons. If you had a mom with Alzheimers would you not want to make her remember you? If you had a faulty liver and all they had to do was take your gamete/ or Adult stem cell and reverse the cycle of growing Stem cells, then place it into your liver to heal it in a matter of months, would you not do that?

 

"Dolly" first cloning a sheep, in-vitro fertilization, funny thing is even with the same DNA is was not an exact copy of it's mother. All we have to do is take a gamete of you and pull the nucleus out of a fetus, then implant your gamete nucleus into the fetus and stick it into a wall of a uterus. We are readily trying to be able to do it in a pitri dish.

 

The problem is that even with dolly and the human clone in korea is that the chances are liek 1/250, less then 1%. We are trying to figure out better ways of doing it, and even though the president didnt' give any funding to it, and continue with the clinton administrations policy, we have tons of privvate doner for the cash. A bad problem is many of the feeder cells hae been foudn to contain diseases and are ruining the Stem cell lines.

 

Anyways, SKA listen to Karl Marx "Religion is the opiate of society"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmz.... so what if the fact cloning will be used for making organs, it would still be used in a bad way. Making organs would be great but this tech would also be used for the bad part of our world, like for example cloning the evil people of our world.

 

There are a lot of things involved with cloning, but before you will be as far as cloning a real human being it will prolly give a lot of dead babies and babies who are mutilated (donno if this is the right word).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think before I die, I'm gonna preserve my body and clone about a million of me to inhabit the earth...Just think of it...1 million of ME!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cloning people for organ replacement is more remote than for organ repair. Both are controversial, but there should be more demand for organ repair.

 

Stem cell therapy, is being pursued as the best possibility for organ repair. Stem cells currently come from two sources. The favored source is Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) involving the mass killing of babies - about 20 to 50 for one "treatment". The other source is already in use outside the United States. Adult Stem Cells (ASCs) have spectacular results and do not require the taking of any lives.

 

Well, for all the media hype about ESCs - there are huge pitfalls to them. Mainly, ESCs have been shown in laboratory tests to form tumors when injected into humans or laboratory animals. Add the risks of rejection. Even with costly immune-suppressing drugs (you will take these forever), you have no defence against these tumors metastaticizing (spreading).

 

ASCs are actually misnamed, they come from umbilical cord blood. Research has shown that ASCs, when matched genetically to the patient, do not trigger attacks from the patient's immune system. This is in distinct contrast to ESCs which have severe side-effects.

 

So why are ESCs, so clearly inferior, lauded as the only possible solution? There is a lot of money to be made in the harvesting of babies. There is even more money from immuno-suppressing drugs. ASCs are simply not as profitable.

 

A woman in South Korea was recently cured of a severe spinal cord injury by ASCs. Her injury was very similar to Christopher Reeves. She had been told she would never walk again. Today, she can walk. Christopher Reeves is now dead. Their differences? Well, her injury was worse, she was older than him, and her injury was also older than his.

 

But I think the US will eventually begin to pour $$ into ESCs and continue to ignore ASCs. Other countries are pursuing ASCs as more viable.

 

Pax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting to note the different view points stem from 3 different schools of thought: Science, Religion and Nature.

 

The people who state 'nature is perfect': you have been artificially improved yourselves. Shortly after being born you have injections to improve your immune systems. However, Id be curious to know if these diseases are man made (bioligy/chemistry isnt my field). Throughout history the same old arguments have been rolled out - steam engines would mean the death of a man (he wouldn't be able to beath), flying is unnatural, heart transplants is playing god and messing with nature, pace makers (as mentioned previously), blood transfusions, the list goes on. All 'messing' with nature. Nature isnt designed, there is no grand meaning in it. It is 'just' the current state of equilibrium we are in.

 

The religion stance. 'We can't play god' Why not? That assumes that everyone must accept there is a god. Dont force youre religous views on everyone. If Im wrong - Ill take my punishment in the hereafter. You will still get your after life. However, if youre wrong, youre denying us a chance at improved health, longer life spans, etc. and for what? According to you guys, it all balances out in the end due to some form of judgement. But the stakes are high, and you need to accept the fact you could, just possibly, be wrong! And therefore you condemn humanity to a fate worse than we can achieve! I wonder when in history was the 'correct' amount of playing god? Back in the 1900's when we had to go to church. pray daily, live shorter lives, have no electricity, poorly understood medicine. Maybe further back, during Jesus' lifetime. When people had the son of God on Earth but had next to no medical help and were lucky to reach 40? We exist in a 'snapshot' in history, and looking at history as a whole shows the diminishing importance of religion and the increasing importance of science.

 

The science stance: Im not assuming everone in this group is pro cloning, but obviously most of the pro guys are here. Its also the group who seem to be the best informed, and don't just state glib one liners ('messing with nature').

 

I wont go into detail about the science, lots of interesting points have already been raised, but the wooly thinking in relation to the ethics involved in some of the posts is worrying! We live in the 21st century, and we are meant to be a well informed, literate, civilised, society. To state we shouldnt play god, or mess with nature, when we are sitting at our keyboards using pcs powered by nuclear power stations, with artificial enhancements circulating throughout our blood streams, seems a tad hypocritical.

 

My projection? Throughout history, mankind has slowly, falteringly, improved his lot. There have been terrible periods, and truly stupid events, but we slowly learn from them. We wont get cloning or other technologies right without failures. Every working object/technology around us has been improved from a less functional prototype. In spite of the religious zealots/naturalists that slow this process, I think this will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wonder when in history was the 'correct' amount of playing god? Back in the 1900's

 

I had a 'fick' moment! Meant to say 1800's!

 

And..

 

(bioligy/chemistry isnt my field).

 

I dont think spelling is my field either!

 

Lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a religious standpoint, we can do whatever we want to earth, it doesnt matter because it will all be destroyed anyway. (christiananity is assumed.)

 

From a scientific standpoint, we can whatever we want because in our pursuit for knowledge we seldom think of the consequenses.(I.E. NUKE.)

sci-knowing.

 

Never heard of naturalists or whatever you meant. only thing that comes to mind is the amish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol so you think you can do human cloning even if it isn't used for the good side of this world. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cloning humans looks more to some way of thinking for people that they are like god, if he exists (i don't believe in him), but people alway's want more and more and more. Eventually this greed of people of more knowledge and power is going to be their end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A woman in South Korea was recently cured of a severe spinal cord injury by ASCs. Her injury was very similar to Christopher Reeves. She had been told she would never walk again. Today, she can walk. Christopher Reeves is now dead. Their differences? Well, her injury was worse, she was older than him, and her injury was also older than his.

 

I am stunned and pleased by this news! Is there a link/website anyone could recommend for further info? Tried a quick google but no luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MarantZ: Here is a link 1 and another 2 and the best one 3.

 

I'm not surprised you didn't find anything on Google. Adult stem cells and anything positive about them has been downplayed by the media worldwide.

 

Stem cells are going to become the main focus of medical cloning. Not to make more people. But as the first step toward developing cures for diabetes, Parkinson's. In simplest terms

 

Embryonic stem cells = more dead babies + don't work.

Adult stem cells = No babies killed. + DO work.

 

But is the media is in love with Embryonic Stem Cells or finding a reason to murder babies by the thousands?

 

Pax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a link 1 and another 2 and the best one 3.

 

I read the above.... Incredible!! Really think this should be read by more people!

Edited by MarantZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×