Human Cloning: Sorting Fact from Fiction

[Randolfe]

The Internet is loaded with distorted information about human reproductive cloning. There are four invaluable resources for those who want to hear the viewpoints of those favoring cloning.
Check out all of them.

www.reproductivecloning.net (probably the very best)
www.clonerights.com (the most activist)
www.stemcellsclub.com[/URL] (new but very well done)
[url]www.humancloning.org[/url] (the oldest site)

Whenever you check out any site, the links there can also lead to interesting places.

The news sections of these sites are also great resources for the latest news. A couple have regular newsletters you can sign up for.

 

[FZ+]

Hey, I'm lazy, so I'll just ask.

In your opinion, what is the point of human cloning? I mean, individual stem cells, perhaps. Organs, maybe. But cloning entire humans seems in my eyes to be a waste of time and resources.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hey, I'm lazy, so I'll just ask.

In your opinion, what is the point of human cloning? I mean, individual stem cells, perhaps. Organs, maybe. But cloning entire humans seems in my eyes to be a waste of time and resources.

You can clone rare geniuses whose genetic pattern rarely comes into existence. We can have thousands of Isaac Newtons, Wolfgang Mozarts, etc. So, why do I want this? Well, more geniuses means more technological/scientific/cultural advancement, and that brings me pleasure, so it is in my enlightened self-interest to promote cloning.

Carlos Hernandez

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
You can clone rare geniuses whose genetic pattern rarely comes into existence. We can have thousands of Isaac Newtons, Wolfgang Mozarts, etc. So, why do I want this? Well, more geniuses means more technological/scientific/cultural advancement, and that brings me pleasure, so it is in my enlightened self-interest to promote cloning.

Carlos Hernandez

The problem is that these things aren't genetic per se. How many Newton geniuses are there? Or didn't he reproduce?

The fact is that we are sculted by our environment, and the 21th century is very very different from the time these people grew up.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Monique
The problem is that these things aren't genetic per se. How many Newton geniuses are there? Or didn't he reproduce?

If Newton reproduced, the offspring would not be identical to him. Only cloning creates identical genotypes.

From my reading, genius is the result of both IQ and the personality trait of creativity. IQ is 80% genetic, and if we were to use the heritability of the big-5 personality traits as a guide, then Creativity would be 50% heritable. The rest is environment.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
If Newton reproduced, the offspring would not be identical to him. Only cloning creates identical genotypes.

From my reading, genius is the result of both IQ and the personality trait of creativity. IQ is 80% genetic, and if we were to use the heritability of the big-5 personality traits as a guide, then Creativity would be 50% heritable. The rest is environment.

Well, the definition of a genetic influence is that its aggregates in families. No, his offspring is not 100% identical, but they ARE 50% identical.

So how do you come to the conclusion that IQ is 80% genetic and creativity 50%? I think those are bold statements..

 

[caumaan]

This is a debate that I can never understand. There are robably a lot of things that you wouldn't like to happen, and human cloning seems to be one of them Monique.

If a society really wanted to eliminate the unecessary application of resources, we would go out on a Hitler-style eugenics project. even if numbers are exaggerated, you imply that genetics has an unfathoamably small amount to do with the subjects of intelligence and creativity.

Society at large contradicts itself in this manner;if they or their family isn't being mugged, raped, or murdered they don't give it a second thought, so why should you have a problem with another person doing something that HAS A CHANCE OF BEING BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY?

If the technology is developed, it isn't like you'll be using it , right? It will probably be much like in vitro fertilization is today, with screenings and interpretations of people's lives being considered before some sort of commity decides that somebody can be artificially impregnated.

Children born of this method seem to show no real threat to society, but rather benefits to the world. I brought this up to limit the use of that lame "increases crime, degrades society" crap. I don't really assume that it will be taken to much higher levels than assisting in reproduction.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by caumaan
so why should you have a problem with another person doing something that HAS A CHANCE OF BEING BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY?

HOW is cloning beneficial to society?? a. there are lots of orphans waiting to be adopted, b. the world is already over-populated, c. this would increase genetic homogeneity, d. there are psychological problems associated with expectations of such a child, e. the technique is very high-risk for the cloned organism.

Children born of this method seem to show no real threat to society, but rather benefits to the world.

again, you should reconsider. I don't see any merit for cloning as a reproductive technique, rather I DO see a bright future for biomedical applications for generating therapeutics.

I brought this up to limit the use of that lame "increases crime, degrades society" crap. I don't really assume that it will be taken to much higher levels than assisting in reproduction.

They said the same about nuclear power, and an atomic bomb was build..

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Monique
So how do you come to the conclusion that IQ is 80% genetic and creativity 50%? I think those are bold statements..

Sources:

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, by Professor Rushton:

Professor Kevin MacDonald: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/

Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations:

Eugenics: A Reassessment:

The g Factor: General Intelligence and its Implications (1996) by Professor Christopher Brand: http://www.douance.org/qi/brandtgf.htm

The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability, by Berkeley Professor Arthur Jensen:

The Pioneer Fund: http://www.pioneerfund.org/ and http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/pioneer.htm

Behavioral Genetics in the Post Genomic Era: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/bgpe.htm

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker:

etc.

 

[Monique]

Again, I don't think amazon.com is really a good source.. so in which of those links is the claim that inheritance accounts 80% for being genious and 50% for creativity? Or is it in any of them at all?

 

[adrenaline]

Most all the "geniuses" also seem to have had some psychiatric problems. There are probably psycological reasons why Newton never married attributed to some personality disorders. Mozart was probably an alcoholic or manic depressive, Nietzche, Van Ghoh etc. etc. If we clone such humans, who is to say our environment ( with easy access to drugs and mood enhancers that were not available back then ) and more dysfunctional support systems would produce a viable functioning human being? Remember, a large percentage of of psychiatric patients self medicate and become drug addicts. We might just be cloning a whole bunch of bipolar, paranoid schizophrenic, drug addicted geniuses.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Monique
Again, I don't think amazon.com is really a good source..

You seem to be confused regarding source and who publishes the source. For example, let's say some well known university professor writes an article. Now, let's say I post that article on my personal site. Well, the article still is the work of the professor. Just because it was posted on my site does not supernaturally convert that article to one I wrote instead of the original author.

Well, same rule applies for Amazon. A variety of university professors wrote books, but Amazon decided to publish them for the author, so I linked to the Amazon links that are publishing the original books.

 

[Monique]

OK: new spin: how identical are identical twins. For those who didn't get the newsflash, these are clones too.. I have known monozygotic twins, they lived in the same house in the same room, in the same bed (bunkbed) and they had very different personalities.

Just think about that.. these people grew up in the same environment at the same era. How would clones turn out if they grew up in different eras?

 

[Monique]

Would Van Gogh's brother have cut of his ear too? Would he have developed the same style of painting? If he grew up in a different family, would he have taken up painting in the first place?

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Monique
so in which of those links is the claim that inheritance accounts 80% for being genious and 50% for creativity? Or is it in any of them at all?

All of those books. And not creativity, but they say the big 5 personality traits are 50% heritable. My original statement was that if we were to assume Creativity had the same heritability as the big 5 personality traits, then it would be 50%. Check out the conversations in the "social sciences" section of this forum.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Monique
OK: new spin: how identical are identical twins. For those who didn't get the newsflash, these are clones too.. I have known monozygotic twins, they lived in the same house in the same room, in the same bed (bunkbed) and they had very different personalities.

Just think about that.. these people grew up in the same environment at the same era. How would clones turn out if they grew up in different eras?

I gave you a link of twin studies showing that identical twins raised apart are more similar than non-twin siblings living in the same house.

But yes, since personality is only 50% heritable, then yes, environment differences would account for the other 50% of variation. But, IQ is 80% heritable, so environment plays a very little part. So, if I were to clone a genius, the clone the probability of him also being a genius would be higher than if the genius simply breeded with a female without the use of cloning technology. The most ideal situation would be to duplicate both environment and genes. So, we clone the genius, and also provide the clone with the same environment as original.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
All of those books. And not creativity, but they say the big 5 personality traits are 50% heritable. My original statement was that if we were to assume Creativity had the same heritability as the big 5 personality traits, then it would be 50%. Check out the conversations in the "social sciences" section of this forum.

OK, it might be heritable.. but please understand that it doesn't mean it is genetic.

With heritable is meant that a child from an aggresive family will grow up to be aggressive, just by being exposed to such an environment (not because of a gene).

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Monique
Would Van Gogh's brother have cut of his ear too? Would he have developed the same style of painting? If he grew up in a different family, would he have taken up painting in the first place?

I agree with you, environment also plays a part. But, without the genetic potential, a similar environment would do nothing.

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Monique
Would Van Gogh's brother have cut of his ear too? Would he have developed the same style of painting? If he grew up in a different family, would he have taken up painting in the first place?

You are right. From a pure eugenics point of view, my brother should be cloned. Iq of 195 (genius), valedictorian at Princeton in theoretical physics, threw over 100 miles per hour as a pitcher and was recruited by the Kansas City Royals.(So he has physcial as well as mental prowess) What is he doing now? He had a bipolar meltdown at the age of 33 and has not reallly recovered until now (after I finally got him to take his medicines). He has not accomplished much or contributed to society due to spending a year in a state intstitution in Los Angles County. Society and the environment has a funny way of throwing a wrench in "genetic" creativity and genius. Who's to say cloning Van Ghoh would not have just produced a great interior decorator!

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by adrenaline
Who's to say cloning Van Ghoh would not have just produced a great interior decorator!

But, the point is that at least the clone would have the genetic potential to do something great if provided with the right circumstances/environment. That is why i support cloning, to increase human potential. But i do understand that just because one has potential, he may not necessarily do anything with it.

Monique mentioned that cloning is technically unsafe right now. I only support cloning once it becomes as safe as invitro-fertilization, otherwise, I believe it should be avoided until then.

Carlos Hernandez

 

[dodger]

I support cloninh in principle, giving greater starting advantage to people would benefit mankind in the whole.

My only concern is how those with advanced/selected genomes would live with those who haven't and to what extent a two tier class system would be produced.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by dodger
I support cloninh in principle, giving greater starting advantage to people would benefit mankind in the whole.

My only concern is how those with advanced/selected genomes would live with those who haven't and to what extent a two tier class system would be produced.

Here is my idea, and just mine, not that anyone has to agree:

I believe that for those that can't afford to genetically engineer or clone their offspring should be provided with government aid to carry out the procedure. And I believe the pay-back to society would far surpass the tax money used to pay for the services. The enhanced offspring would be very productive and pay back much more taxes than was used on them.

So this way, there will be no "speciation" between the genetically enhanced and the rest: everyone would rise together.

 

[dodger]

Yes good idea, but it doesn't come down only to finance, people in principle against it would still be differnet to those with and this distinciton would affect society and this is my concern.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by dodger
Yes good idea, but it doesn't come down only to finance, people in principle against it would still be differnet to those with and this distinciton would affect society and this is my concern.

My opinion: those who refuse the opportunity can just go their own way, and still live in peace with the enhanced people.

 

[Monique]

Oh common, people!

First of all, Carlos and the others: go and rent GATACA from the video store.. it exactly plays with the ideas which are being brought up here.

Second, why use cloning if you want to advance society? Aren't there much better ways than just to look at an individual sculped by environment and genetics who seems to be good (I really wonder how you'd determine that, but anyway).

Thinking in the scenario that seems to be an ideal by the ideas being brought up, wouldn't you want to screen for genetic disease in unborns and commit abortion if they carry a mutation?

Or do prenatal screening where we can all grow black blue eyed babies?

And to eliminate environmental variation, we just grow them up in a special facility which is specifically tailored to make use of all the genius-inducing genes.

Btw, did anyone read the book or saw the movie 'Boys from Brazil'? Go and read that one too, it deals with the situation I described last.

 

[Monique]

And besides that, who is going to determine what an enhanced human being looks like?

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Monique
First of all, Carlos and the others: go and rent GATACA from the video store.. it exactly plays with the ideas which are being brought up here.

Gatica was not a rational movie, the author was a Marxist and was biased in the portrayal of futurists. In fact, I have ample evidence that Hollywood is under Marxist control, or in other words, CEOs who have identical political/cultural beliefs, that of Marxism. No diversity of ideas in Hollywood. Actually, I think a better portrayal of what I personally like is the Falcon species Spok from Star Trek belonged to. They were very rational/logical/not sentimental. That's what I like. Or a species of Datas from Star Trek the new generation. This is just me, others can disagree. Try out the following site: http://www.transhumanism.org/

 

[caumaan]

Monique, they took your perspective of in vitor fertilization, and I dare you to give me one example of a murderer, drug addict, etc of any of the people that were created by this process.

Also, if you read it carefully, I said "HAS A CHANCE OF BEING BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY", and I mentioned nothing of some sort of absolute proof that they would be so.

I think it is worth mentioning that you need to study your history. The atomic bomb was created first. It was created as a means of desstruction, tested in New Mexico in 1945. It was used as an actual weapon on August 6, 1945 and again on August 9, 1094 in the two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't really say that it was a completely bad thing, for it ended World War II by forcing Japan and eventually the Axis of Evil into submission.

Comparing a clone to an atomic bomb; that really is something. Do you really think that the majority of the population will have one? Can you at least give me a reason as to why you think it would be so harmful?

If you can't or don't want to, at least tell me why you oppose cloning when you clearly acknowledge it probably wouldn't produce a phenotypical replica of the person. (Please try to think in terms of only a small number of people, ranging in the thousnds, which is where I would feel averag3e cloning would probably be placed for a long period of time)

 

[dodger]

Originally posted by Monique

Second, why use cloning if you want to advance society? Aren't there much better ways than just to look at an individual sculped by environment and genetics who seems to be good (I really wonder how you'd determine that, but anyway).

Dont you think cloning could be used to advance society? And if it could why not use it? There are other ways to do the advancement and these have all been used, this is new and if you are against it in principle then should others be stopped from using it.
Yes this depends on the choice of 'intelligent gene' and we don't know how to chose let alone describe these things.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by caumaan
Monique, they took your perspective of in vitor fertilization, and I dare you to give me one example of a murderer, drug addict, etc of any of the people that were created by this process.

.. and why do I have to do that ??

Also, if you read it carefully, I said "HAS A CHANCE OF BEING BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY", and I mentioned nothing of some sort of absolute proof that they would be so.

So you are just making statements made up out of air? How convenient.. but you must have a reason why you say that or at least have an hypothesis, otherwise you could as well have stated that 'It has a chance of being deleterious to society'.

I think it is worth mentioning that you need to study your history. The atomic bomb was created first.

I was thinking about the regret the scientists had of developing the bomb. You really seriously with your heart feel that the use of the bomb on Japan was a good thing?

Comparing a clone to an atomic bomb; that really is something. Do you really think that the majority of the population will have one? Can you at least give me a reason as to why you think it would be so harmful?

Didn't I already do that in my first paragraph in reply to you? I'll repost it :)

"HOW is cloning beneficial to society?? a. there are lots of orphans waiting to be adopted, b. the world is already over-populated, c. this would increase genetic homogeneity, d. there are psychological problems associated with expectations of such a child, e. the technique is very high-risk for the cloned organism."

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

From http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mission.htm

"Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery. We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown. (Dworkin, 2000)"

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
Gatica was not a rational movie, the author was a Marxist and was biased in the portrayal of futurists. In fact, I have ample evidence that Hollywood is under Marxist control, or in other words, CEOs who have identical political/cultural beliefs, that of Marxism. No diversity of ideas in Hollywood. Actually, I think a better portrayal of what I personally like is the Falcon species Spok from Star Trek belonged to. They were very rational/logical/not sentimental. That's what I like. Or a species of Datas from Star Trek the new generation. This is just me, others can disagree. Try out the following site: http://www.transhumanism.org/

I don't quite get what you mean here. So you think future society will be emotionless??

Why I mentioned GATACA, is that in that movie a society is dealing with genetic predispositions and genetic engineering, exactly the thing you are advocating.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
From http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mission.htm

"Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery. We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown. (Dworkin, 2000)"

Yes, and we are humans and we are able to realize the consequences of certain decisions and where unknown paths will take us.

I am not advocating the complete ban on cloning, I would like to see the ban on stemcell research removed, but ethics play a large role in scientific research and they certainly have to be taken into account.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Monique
I don't quite get what you mean here. So you think future society will be emotionless??

Why I mentioned GATACA, is that in that movie a society is dealing with genetic predispositions and genetic engineering, exactly the thing you are advocating.

Gattica portrays every person as identical, but, I don't advocate making everyone 100% identical. We still need some diversity in personality to make society functional.

Regarding emotions, I personally don't value sentimentality, but rather pragmatism and stoicism. That is just my idiosyncratic tendency. Others will differ.

 

[dodger]

Originally posted by Monique
.. and why do I have to do that ??

"HOW is cloning beneficial to society?? a. there are lots of orphans waiting to be adopted, b. the world is already over-populated, c. this would increase genetic homogeneity, d. there are psychological problems associated with expectations of such a child, e. the technique is very high-risk for the cloned organism." [/B]

Points a, b are irreleavent. c is a BAD point (as opposed to a good point), d doesn't mean anything andd e applies only now so is irrelavent.

Yes we should play with fire.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
Gattica portrays every person as identical, but, I don't advocate making everyone 100% identical. We still need some diversity in personality to make society functional.

Regarding emotions, I personally don't value sentimentality, but rather pragmatism and stoicism. That is just my idiosyncratic tendency. Others will differ.

The movie's name is GATACA (after the four bases which make up our genome: CATG).

The movie did not portray every person as being identical, not at all.

 

[FZ+]

You can clone rare geniuses whose genetic pattern rarely comes into existence. We can have thousands of Isaac Newtons, Wolfgang Mozarts, etc. So, why do I want this? Well, more geniuses means more technological/scientific/cultural advancement, and that brings me pleasure, so it is in my enlightened self-interest to promote cloning.

But that's besides the point. There are many better ways.

So, you believe in the creed of transhumanism, right? Transhumanism is about human eventually going above the current, with us guiding the evolution of our species. Ok. I have no problems with that.

But cloning obviously runs contrary to that purpose. Cloning isn't going to improve humanity. It is simply going to replicate our flaws.

Suppose we find that whatever made Newton is x percent genetic, and let go of the lack of evidence for a moment, and ignore any moral objections. So what? In his later life, Newton was a jerk. He wasted his life on alchemy, and was an ass to everyone he met. Do we want a clone of him? Most schoolkids can probably come up with the insights he took, without the additional madness. Mozart? Mozart was driven by a private passion. If that passion was genetic, then we'll get bored of his single passion. Cloning seems only to allow us to live in the past.

If we are to use genetics properly with a transhumanist goal, we shouldn't be going with the wastefulness of cloning, or the scattershot approach of eugenics. We should be using our new knowledge of the human genome to advance our progressive generations.

dodger:

Points a, b are irreleavent. c is a BAD point (as opposed to a good point), d doesn't mean anything andd e applies only now so is irrelavent.

I think you failed to recognise ironic rhetoric.

Carlos:

Gatica was not a rational movie, the author was a Marxist and was biased in the portrayal of futurists. In fact, I have ample evidence that Hollywood is under Marxist control, or in other words, CEOs who have identical political/cultural beliefs, that of Marxism. No diversity of ideas in Hollywood. Actually, I think a better portrayal of what I personally like is the Falcon species Spok from Star Trek belonged to.

That sounds like an ad hominem attack, to me.

No, Gattaca is in no way marxist. If anything, it is anti-marxist (specifically anti the predestination implication of genetic testing), but is overall pretty even handed. Star Trek, on the other hand is a marxist vision. (no currency ring a bell?) And Spock came from the Vulcans.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by dodger
Points a, b are irreleavent. c is a BAD point (as opposed to a good point), d doesn't mean anything andd e applies only now so is irrelavent.

Yes we should play with fire.

You probably failed your ethics class? You probably think the development of the atomic bomb was a good thing for humanity? You probably think Hitler had a good agenda?

And why do you think those points I mentioned were pro-cloning? Cloning reduces genetic variability and thus makes us more prone to diseases and also leads to a higher frequency of inbreeding. How can that be a bad argument against cloning?

 

[Ontoplankton]

Originally posted by Monique
You probably think Hitler had a good agenda?

Godwin's Law, dodger wins.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by FZ+
That sounds like an ad hominem attack, to me.

You are right, I was guilty of ad hominem. I will try not to do it again. Let me know if I do.

Carlos Hernandez