PDA

View Full Version : Cloning: looks like they've really done it! Are there any RAELIANS Here?



Tycho
12-30-2002, 02:02 PM
Well, scientists subscribing to the Raelian religion have supposedly brought into this world the first human clone - with about 9 more on the way.

Raelians believe we were all created by space aliens, who made us in their own image (they were humans too - but really advanced ones).

Yayweh (spelling) the name the Hewbrews called God, was actually the leader of the Sollus-bound science expedition. That is why we called our creator that in the Old Testament. He's had some contact with us primative Earth People, though he may have now died a long time ago.

In any case, we are all clones, say the Raelians, so we are beginning to follow in our creator's footsteps, as we aspire to become closer to our creators.

What do you think? I hope my ancestors are on the Battlestar Galactica and one day they will come and find me. Or if Star Wars took place a long time ago, maybe I'm a descendant of Han Solo.

All this stuff could be real, and there was one Lord: Vader - and Lucas is his Prophet!

darthvyn
12-30-2002, 02:07 PM
well, DUH... everyone knows that!

QLD
12-30-2002, 02:08 PM
Well, cloning was a Pandora's box I was hoping to never see opened.

Cloneaid(the Raelians group), has yet to put forward any evidence that the baby is in fact, a clone. All they have done is say they have. Of course, all other scientists are saying they are full of it. But I am sure that is mostly because they are only a few weeks behind them, and would hate to see the first cloned human go to an "off the wall" group such as the Raelians.

Anyway, I doubt the Raelians have done it, considering they aren't very willing to prove it yet, but who knows, I've seen crazier things happen.

I think cloning humans for reproduction is a very bad idea. However, I am torn, because I think the idea of cloning limbs and organs for medical care is a good idea.

Anyway, have you seen the chick they supposedly cloned? Couldn't they have used Reese Witherspoon instead??? :crazed:

The Overlord Returns
12-30-2002, 02:26 PM
This world has population problems as it is, the last thing we need is to be manufacturing more mouths to feed. This is a bad idea, and the repercussions ( or possible repercussions) worry me a great deal.

I agree with you QLD about cloning organs, and I see the benefit there. However, cloning an entire person is a different thing altogether......

Pendo
12-30-2002, 02:31 PM
What if cloning becomes legal, and 50% of the population are clones. I can see the government banning certain films as Attack of the Clones, 6th Day, and other movies about cloning.

We're bringing clones into a society where they have already been shut out. It's not going to work.

PENDO!

Rogue II
12-30-2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
This world has population problems as it is, the last thing we need is to be manufacturing more mouths to feed. This is a bad idea, and the repercussions ( or possible repercussions) worry me a great deal.

I agree with you QLD about cloning organs, and I see the benefit there. However, cloning an entire person is a different thing altogether......

Exactly.

No one, including Reece Witherspoon, is so irreplaceable that there needs to be clones.

Fulit
12-30-2002, 02:38 PM
As long as women still have to physically birth these "clones", I don't see the big deal. When they start growing them in big Kamino-looking vats, then I'll worry. Especially if they look anything like that Raelian lady that held the press conference the other day. Yeesh.

Anyone got a picture of her, so you can see what I'm talking about?

Tycho
12-30-2002, 03:44 PM
As far as over-population is concerned - I'm very concerned that we do not make a global effort to reduce the human birth rate. All we can really hope to affect is the United States, and hopefully Mexico since they're our nearest neighbor with a growing population.

That being said, Cloning doesn't one way or another effect the birth rate if a mother would normally become pregnant by intention, anyway. Cloning will generally not help her carry more than one baby at a time. It still takes 9 months - we don't do it like the Kaminoans do it.

Just the same, if someone isn't garaunteed a pregnancy the natural way, it can raise the birthrate minutely.

Finally, if someone wouldn't decide to have another child because of their losing one, a clone of the child might encourage them otherwise.

It would be hard to even hypothesize what cloning would do to the world population. But until they can make them like you saw in Star Wars - over-population is no more a concern with cloning, than it is with the natural birthrate.

The Overlord Returns
12-30-2002, 04:11 PM
Thing is, you can't view these type of issues in the short term. The world did that with the atomic bomb, and look where that got us.

This is what I mean by "repercussions". No, right now, cloning would not effect over population in any serious way, and yes, we NEED to look at ways to hamper that problem now. But, 20 years from now, when they can ( possibly) make clones the star wars way, it becomes a problem. Oppenheimer and his band of scientific visionaries were full of zeal and drive in a short term sense. In the long run, oppenheimer spent his remaining years torn and guilt ridden by what he had done, and several other scientists responsible for the nuclear bomb spent their years trying to right the wrong they had created.........

sith_killer_99
12-30-2002, 05:28 PM
Am I the only one who has absolutly no objections to human cloning?

JON9000
12-30-2002, 05:43 PM
Ah, clones. A new minority. I am sure the new Falwell inspired hate group will be forthcoming. Stay tuned.
:dead:

Tycho
12-30-2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by sith_killer_99
Am I the only one who has absolutly no objections to human cloning?

I don't object to it, but there should be great surveilance over it, and laws should be adapted as it's practiced.

For example, if your parents lost their child to tragedy, and cloned a replacement - there are ethical considerations concerning good parenting of course - but if you were that clone, feasibly you could draw 2 social security checks, unemployment benefits, etc. - if they named you the same as their child, and later, when your ages would be harder to tell apart, you usurped your brother's identity, there should be laws against clones doing this. At the same time, there will no doubt be Clones' Rights Groups who will call that discrimination.

Meanwhile, Clones could unscrupulously take away the education credits YOU earned, your retirement, etc. etc.

Should Einstein's clone automatically hold a Ph.D.?

What if they uncover some arheological artifact and try and clone Jesus Christ?

Then there's the homicide question. Somebody wants to kill the President and they get a DNA sample from George Bush - then even "a kid on a White House tour" takes a detour and kills Bush in a closed room with one entrance, one exit - the weapon? a letter opener. - There are no fingerprints on the door, in the room, or on the murder weapon other than the victim's. So is it a suicide? How can you prove it was murder? (though I do not know for certain if a clone has identical fingerprints to its progeneraitor - and this wouldn't really apply if not so).

A Neo-Nazi group finds something they can use to clone Adolf Hitler. The new child is taken away and put into protective custody. He will not grow up to be evil, hate Jews, etc. That is environment, not genetics at work (unless the Neo-Nazi group succeeds in raising him). Regardless, a Holocaust survivor victim wants revenge and kills the innocent clone of Hitler, because he is a figure-head, a target, nevertheless.

Saddam Hussein decrees that he will forever lead Iraq. He has himself cloned every 50 years. The first Hussein wanted to use biological weapons on Israel but never did. The second, spurred on to be greater than his predacessor does. To compete with that, the third Saddam launches nuclear weapons at the United States.

To take a step back closer to reality, suppose you can clone a pet you lost. Your cat passed on, and you miss her so much. Well, there are thousands of cats needing good homes at your animal shelter right now, but you need to have a clone of your pet? What about the host parent? A stray animal, not yet spayed, still needs to bear your replacement kitten for a normal growth period. Are you going to keep both animals when your clone is born? Or is this poor breeder cat going to be continuously used as a host, from home to home, not getting the love it too deserves? I could accept there being cloned pets, so long as a normal background check for a pet adoption is done, and an agreement and check-ups for the continued care of the breeding mother is set up with the clone-pet customer. You take 2 to get your clone, or you take none. That's only fair!

I am not against cloning. I always think science should progress, but ethics must go hand-and-hand with it. As I showed, it must apply even to something as small as a pet adoption, to something as large as world politics and clone armies.

sith_killer_99
12-30-2002, 07:13 PM
What most people fail to realize is that these issues have been dealt with before.

So what if there are two genetically identical people walking around. It's been going on for years. We call them identical twins (monozygotic). They are both made up of the same DNA, in fact they are both from the same fertalized egg!

Could one identical twin steal his brother's identity (college credit, social security) or whatever? Maybe, but it's harder to do than you may think. I knew these twin brothers who used to change places in school, go to each other's classes, etc. until they got caught.

Einstein's clone hold a Ph.D.? Why, did he got to college too? They are not the same person, with the same memories, they are just genetically identical.

This means that they are predisposed to certain things, that's it. No different from identical twins.

As for the other issues like, well what if you lost a kid and you had it cloned? Where is the ethical question concerning good parenting? I can understand if the parents killed the first kid, but not if they lost their child to an accident. It may be a bit morbid to clone your dead son, counseling would probably be better.

Let's face it, cloning isn't much different than artificial incemination. It's just that you are using a blueprint that has been used before.

As for the whole Hitler/Saddam issues. I won't touch those ones with a ten-foot-pole. All I can say is someone's been watching "Conspiracy Theory". JK

I guess I just look at this issue in simplest terms. A clone is just a person. In fact, if a person were born a clone they might never even know they were a clone. It's not like you get stamped "Clone" or "Original" when your born.

I just think too many people freak out over this issue. I think our own elected officials are a bunch of supersticious, close minded, idiots who fail to see the truth and potential of human cloning.

Mark my words, one day future generations will look back at these times and call us savages who allowed fear and emotion to limit ourselves.

Tycho
12-30-2002, 07:51 PM
I agree with Sith_Killer, though I'm sure it sounds like I'm playing the Devil's Advocate in some of these arguments. That being said, I'll answer his "parenting ethics" question.

A couple may have a child that they raised a certain way because their income was at a certain level, and the time they needed to be at work versus the time they could spend with their child was limited. The child, alone a lot, learns to draw and color to entertain themselves, and excels in art.

The child is killed in an accident.

He or she is cloned.

The new child is born into the same family, which may now have changes in income and time allotted for working which affects them by allowing them more time to be with "Junior 2." They try to be better parents and spoiler the child more, or distract the child more with more options, or try and force them to be this artist like their first child. Junior 2 does not want to be: his parents can afford an X-box for him, or Dad has time to play ball with him - so he wants to be a computer programmer or a basketball player. What he ends up is (if only slightly) psychologically abused because he has this artistic talent within him, but he is a different person than his progenerator - even in the same family. He does not want to be Junior 1 - he isn't and he resents people wanting him to be that.

I don't think laws should be made telling parents that they can't name their cloned children after lost ones, but I can't see it being advocated by smart counselors, and I can think it would be reasonable for the laws governing medical practice to require this counseling first.

2-1B
12-31-2002, 02:15 AM
The Raelians bring but 2 words to mind . . . . . .








CUCKOO
CUCKOO

EricRG
12-31-2002, 07:41 AM
I agree with Caeser. Until we see some REAL scientific evidence, I don't believe a word they say. Raelian scientists? ROTFLOL.

sith_killer_99
12-31-2002, 10:43 AM
Anyone wanna hear a little conspiracy theory?

What if the Raelians are being backed by our own government?

What better way to discredit human cloning and discourage further attempts? We are already seeing other scientists come forward to denounce these "crackpots".

Maybe this is just a way to burry the idea of human cloning in the realm of science fiction, along with cold fusion.

Using a Cult like this also ensure that all the other religious based groups oppose human cloning and that the average citizen will not take them seriously.

Which could lead us to...

What if the Raelians are being backed by our Govenment and they actually did clone a human (with our governments help).

They come out and tell everyone "We cloned a human" then offer little or no proof. Noone takes them seriously, and we all go back to our own business. Meanwhile, the cloning has begun, and we all "missed it". However, these guys continue to clone people with our governments help....

Patient Zero
12-31-2002, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by sith_killer_99
Am I the only one who has absolutly no objections to human cloning?

Not at all! I am first and formost in favor of the evolution of the species both physically and intellectualy. What other reason would a species continue to exist if not to evolve. What I have a problem with is the bad choice of name: Clonaide. You believe in aliens...fine. You believe that we are actually all aliens...fine. You believe that your baloney really does have a first name...fine. But who is the nut that came up with that name. So many other words are ruined for me now.

Kool-Aide
Farm-Aide
Band-Aide
Diphtheria
RC Cola

Wait...what was I talking about?

Tycho
12-31-2002, 01:49 PM
How about :

CLONICOM! Bodies you've already made - and we charge you for!

CloniCore! At the Core of every individual, we see quality, and make it less unique!

CLONICAMP! Hanging out with us is both comfortable and familiar. All stories are old stories around the Campfire.

CLONICREED! Feel alienated - like you're from another planet? Then let us make more of you!

CLONICUM: Lonely? We can help. The whole world right from their fingertips to yours!

CLONICAUSE: Our political services division turns minority issues into majority ones!

CLONICOURT: We provide fair and impartial trials by a jury of your peers - garaunteed!

Clone-A-Claus: We make sure there's really only 1 true Santa, and he gets everywhere by Christmas!

Clone-Umps: The solution to end all violence in Major League Baseball - a Pete Rose Company.

CloniClique : Wish you were more popular in school?

and many more forthcoming.... :rolleyes:

QLD
12-31-2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
How about :

CLONICOM! Bodies you've already made - and we charge you for!

Sounds like a comic book show.



CLONICAMP! Hanging out with us is both comfortable and familiar. All stories are old stories around the Campfire.

So THAT's why John Mellencamp is still around!



CLONICREED! Feel alienated - like you're from another planet? Then let us make more of you!

For the love of God NOoOOOOO!!!!!! I am sick of their music!



CLONICUM: Lonely? We can help. The whole world right from their fingertips to yours!

Huh huh huh.....heh heh heh....you just said clonicum

JON9000
12-31-2002, 04:48 PM
I think it should be called the Tyrell Corporation. Commerce is our goal, more human than human is our motto. I want to become a Voight-Kompf screener. Anyone else?

bigbarada
01-01-2003, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by JON9000
Ah, clones. A new minority. I am sure the new Falwell inspired hate group will be forthcoming. Stay tuned.
:dead:

Sorry, but this comment is just so blatantly wrong and slanderous I must comment on it. Jerry Falwell has NEVER inspired or purposefully created a hate group. Regardless of what the PC-mafia would have the world believe. Let's try to stay on topic and not fling baseless accusations at people who aren't here to defend themselves.

Okay moving on to the topic at hand:

If this group did manage to clone this woman at 31 years of age, the baby has been born with 31 year old DNA. Like everything else in the human body, DNA deteriorates with age. Thus this child will be more susceptible to diseases, birth defects, cancers and will most likely have a very short lifespan. I highly doubt she will live long enough to see her first birthday. Assuming the story of her birth is even true, which I highly doubt.

Our current zygotic system of reproduction was designed to prevent the natural decay of the DNA strand by regenerating it partially with every birth. The zygotes (the sperm and egg cells) have only half a DNA strand apiece, thus when they combine they form a completed strand. However, this only slows the rate of decay, it doesn't stop it and it most definitely doesn't reverse it. The idea that we, the human species, are getting stronger and smarter is scientifically impossible. It's a little thing known as "entropy" and it is the greatest scientific contradiction to the Theory of Evolution.

Thus, our collective DNA has decayed way too much for it to viably produce mass numbers of healthy, strong humans.

Of course, if I am wrong, this will simply introduce another form of slavery into the world. Whether it means breeding people simply to harvest their organs or breeding them to fight our wars.

sith_killer_99
01-01-2003, 06:32 AM
Entropy-Sometimes presented as the second law of thermodynamics. The concept persented by Rudolph Clausius in 1850 states that all spontaneous processes are irreversible; hence, it has been said thet the entropy of the universe is increasing: that is, more and more energy becomes unavailable for conversion into mechanical work, and because of this the universe is said to be "running down." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1993)

Einstein theorized that energy can be neither created or destroyed. However, the theory of entropy does not state that energy is destroyed, it simply becomes "unavailable" for conversion into mechanical energy. This would coincide with Einsteins' theory that the universe is expanding, and that it will inevitably stop, and then slowly colapse in upon itself.

But, I still fail to see how cloning could become a form of slavery. A human born as a clone is still an independant human life form. Just like identical twins. We don't kill one twin and harvest their organs for the other do we?

I just think all this hooy about organ harvesting and building an Army of clones is science fiction garbage.:rolleyes:

Tycho
01-01-2003, 01:52 PM
Big Barada makes an interesting point about what might go wrong here.

First, I'm not against cloning - I am all for advancing science and do believe we can "get smarter" from the stand point that we are making discoveries and expanding our knowledge all the time that way. Perhaps "getting smarter" needs more clarifying and I don't understand.

Meanwhile, it may be true that the 31-year old's DNA is changed radically from what it should be for a new 8-day year-old copy of that woman.

1) for cloning to progress, we might have to learn to correct or augment this problem. As BigB suggested, having a baby the natural way is a simple way to do that.

- I am more interested in cloning to see if we can expand human science and see if we can do it, less than whether it is useful once we perfect it.

I see medical applications for organ regeneration or tissue replacement as good - though accomplished in more humane ways than growing full clones for organ-harvesting as sciene-ficition tales of horror conjecture.

And the line for Jurassic Park "They were so obsessed with whether they COULD do it, they never stopped to ask themselves whether they SHOULD do it," comes to mind.

But we don't know what benefits or unexpected knowledge we might gain for cautiously trying. That being said, go ahead and clone some dinosaurs. Maybe a T-Rex produced an enzyme for digesting carrion that can reverse the decaying effects of cancer. Let's just not create an island of the things that will end up eating people. They were correct in the movie when they said the species was extinct for billions of years and it was never intended for man and dinosaur to meet.

2) back to the 31 year old woman. 2 things can happen, one like Big Barada suggested.

i) suppose this woman would naturally live to be 87 years old. Thus she has 56 more years of life left in her. Her clone might only live to be 56 years old period.

If clones became more common, a whole industry of clone-life-prolongation will spring up, and clones' rights groups will hold that against us "lifers," who enjoy retirement etc. Clones will sue the government to collect their social security when they are 31 years old or something, if we take this donor woman's life span as an example - as she will enjoy 25 years of retirement (assuming she retired at 65 and lives until 87). Then there will be prejudice against clones because I'm sure I'll have to work and pay taxes into social security when I'm 31, but my cloned neighbor can retire and reap the benefits like another welfare fraud case. But they are right in that it will create at least an indirect form of slavery if one group must work their entire shorter lives and never get to retire.

Heck, if we were to abuse this, we should create an entire working class of clones and live off their social security. The current government mechanisms are in place for a 'natural, institutionalized slavery.' BigBarada is correct, but perhaps not in a way he realized. We can deny it's slavery, because this woman's clone can certainly retire and collect benefits at 65 - and live off their SSI for 25 years if they want to because *sarcastically* "we're not stopping them...."


now, situation

ii) The body's decay is progressed by all our childhood illnesses like chicken pox, etc. that we all get. This woman's clone is born immune to all of that for some reason (and I'm not a medical person, so I don't know if it's possible).

Clones will then outlive us and her clone will survive for maybe 200 years. She'll draw retirement benefits for 135 years draining social security, and living a life of leisure - when she'll probably age slower than the rest of us. We'll be working, briefly retiring and dying - and not jealous of our neighbor the clone? Furthermore, if she gets elected to Congress, she'll be there longer than Strom Thurmond without term limits. Put a ton of Clones into Congress without term limits, and we lose control of the country. That being said, we make laws. "Normal people can retire at 65, Clones can only draw benefits at 156, or some formula of "their projected lifespan "x-years" minus twenty-five). That's discrimination - possibly institutionalizing slavery a different way, too. How about limiting one's political rights? Clones cannot serve more than 10 terms in the US Senate, or 40 terms in the US House of Representatives. Other people can serve their normal lifespan (over the age of 25 of course). That still doesn't prevent Congress from being taken over by Clones - unless campaign finance reform actually happens. But then once Congress is taken over by Clones, the rest of the clones WILL be retiring at 32 years of age, or even at 65 like everyone else, but us "normally conceived lifers" will be the ones who have become the slaves.

CONCLUSION HERE:

We should continue cloning, but reproductive cloning should be for studying and learning, not become an acceptable and totally common method of reproduction unless that is our next step in evolution - to become a society of clones. That of course gives US the option of determining our evolution ourselves. Let's make good decisions here.

Darth Sinister
01-01-2003, 03:49 PM
The road to hell was paved with good intentions. Now, the created have become the creators......or at least strive to be. The events of this world are increasing to the point of Biblical reference at an alarming rate. The reference I speak of is near the end of the book...feel free to skip ahead. But then again, don't believe everything you read.

Jargo
01-01-2003, 06:21 PM
Global overpopulation is caused by the elderly not the infants. We now live much longer life spans than humans ever have and the elderly are choking the planet. Women are not giving birth to as many children as they used to because they choose to serve themselves rather than be slaves to men and children and that is quite alright by me. But the elderly are living too long and taking up far too many resources. The cost of keeping the elderly superheated and spoonfed is enormous so the only solution is mandatory euthanasia at sixty five years old. Rid the world of the plague of elderly citizens and give some room for the growth of burgeoning generations. Cut out the dead wood and allow fot some progress finally. get rid of the dead meat old fogeys and let's do some real evolving. Pay some judies to give birth to kids and start a new wave of humanity without the oppresion and goddamned anchor weight of the living dead. And yes, I'm quite prepared to accept euthanasia as a decent end to my life when the time came. I do not want to become anything like those withered old crones who leech from society. the bony claws of old age is something I'm totally prepared to forego.

Jedi Clint
01-01-2003, 09:11 PM
Natural reprodution helps ensure the survival of the species. Something that one animal may be at risk of, another may not. If we all had the exact same gene sequence, one disease could potentially wipe out the entire population.

Tycho
01-01-2003, 09:31 PM
Star Trek: The Next Generation did an episode about what Emperor Jargo is recommending. It was called "Half a Life." It was exactly that: you are euthanized at age 65.

Trek too the position that this was wrong in the eyes of the main character involved in the story: Lwaxana Troi (Deanna's mother) who was in love with a 65-year old scientist who was trying to save his whole population by building some kind of shield to protect their planet when their sun started shooting off flares as it aged.

He was the only scientist who really could do this, though it was noted that others could read his work and continue.

One argument was that he should just be allowed to continue long enough to achieve, then be euthanized.

But ultimately the character decided to not break the rules of his society and he chose to die despite ending his engagement to Deanna's mother and not having finished the shield that would protect all the life on his world.

Oh - the scientist, was like Einstein in the regard that he was older, too.

Over-population was the reason, as well as death-with-dignity, offered for why this planet killed their people at 65.

Today in real life, we have to look at what the problems of overpopulation are:

1) reduces the supply of housing - causing us to have to build out more into our natural wild-lands, or increase the demand on water and electricty etc, in our cities.

SOLUTIONS? as to housing, one can deem it law not to kill the elderly, but to make them surrender their homes to their designated heirs (kids, grandkids) at a certain age, so we have available housing. As to electricity and water needs, if there is co-habitation (that is the elders live with their younger family members, volume demanded won't change too much, but be more evenly split up per capita - that is you'd only have to heat one home, not two. It will reduce some energy and water needs - i.e. watering two lawns instead of 1?). Standards of living will increase also. Some people might be in their 30's-40's and still not be able to afford their own home. That problem is solved: they get the title to Mom & Dad's. This seems more kinder than euthanizing them. (but you'd still get their property, just not their continued nagging advice - or their love either).

2) over population reduces the number of jobs available, and the quality of wages - everyone's a number, that is. People over 65 would not be allowed to work, but the real elderly are not taking up our jobs - they're providing them especially in health care. Over-population of working age people IS increasing unemployment and causing wage quality to decline. That's just simple arithmetic. Even if it's not, and we took extreme steps to reduce the birth rate, would it be so bad if McDonald's was so desperate to hire that they were paying $15 an hour?

3) food supply - that's not really a problem with modern farming techniques.

4) education, child supervision: with the elderly at home, until they were too old, there would be REAL child supervision, by those most experienced with it. Over-population of school-age children does cause a problem -but it can too provide jobs. If teachers were making $60,000 a year or more, that would be considered a much more noble occupation. Just the same, budgets need to be directed so its not just that teachers are paid their worth, but that there are enough of them to keep classes small so all the students get attention.

I'm going to stop at this point and let others comment more.

bigbarada
01-02-2003, 02:24 AM
When I took Sociology, the population problem was a major topic we discusssed. Following the past trends of population growth and projecting forward slightly, we can determine that some European nations have already slipped into a negative population growth curve. Soon all of Europe and the US and Canada should follow suit. It is a feature of post-industrialized nations.

China's strict measures to control it's population are starting to work too well. That country will also soon slip into negative growth. The problem is so bad over there that the government is paying women to have a child. The women, in love with the freedom childlessness brings, aren't jumping on the money nearly as fast as many of us would believe. If things keep going as they are, China's population is expected to drop to 800 million within twenty years.

However, the population explosion is coming from the third and second world countries. India has recently reached the one billion mark in population. In these countries, women are considered second rate citizens and are only valued for one thing: their ability to produce sons. Plus the standard of living in some of these countries is so low, that parents must play the odds game. If you have ten children, the odds of 1 or 2 of them growing to adulthood are much better.

Thus there are two simple solutions to controling the population (simple in theory, not in carrying them out):

1. Empower women - women who can make their own decisions in life, have their own careers and aren't considered the property of their husbands, tend to have less children if they have children at all.

2. Bring food to the needy throughout the world. Some of us live in countries where eating is treated like a spectator sport (the competetive eating games) and most health officials agree, we simply have too much food. So how can anyone in good conscience stuff their face while children and families are starving throughout the world? If we improve the living conditions of many of these nations, the infant mortality rate will drop. This will be followed by a brief surge in population, but eventually, when parents realize that their children's chances for survival are now better, the population should level off and begin to decrease eventually like all the post-industrialized nations. To prevent a surge, limits on the number of children can also be inforced in those nations.

Like I said, these sound good in theory, but are nearly impossible to put into practice. Many foreign governments don't respond well to outside interference and use the lack of food to keep their people supressed. Somalia was a perfect example of this.

Tycho
01-02-2003, 02:36 AM
Is negative population growth a bad thing?

I think it's a great thing! The fewer of us ruining this planet, the better.

Our lesser numbers can be better educated, more sensitive to each other and the environment, and more accountable towards all measures of morality.

However, with the death of women serving institutionalized motherhood, also comes the death of love. Consider what I said about that in my allusion, before you ask me what I meant.

bigbarada
01-02-2003, 02:53 AM
I thought negative population growth was the goal of the population debates. It's a good thing now, since overpopulation has caused so much suffering and despair into this world. Not to mention a severly increased crime rate.

If the world only have about two or three thousand people and started experiencing negative population growth, then I could see a major cause for concern.

I don't say anything about banning the institution of marriage. I think that marriage should just exist in the form dictated by God. One man, one woman, both submissive to each other and equal.

And nothing would exterminate love from the world, not as long as we have people willing to follow the message of Jesus.:cool:

Tycho
01-02-2003, 03:21 AM
But the message of Jesus goes along with the denial of sex except for procreation, right?

At least that's the Catholic point of view against birth control.

Men and women love each other, and they marry each other, for sex.

I mean most women are so different from us guys that if I wasn't straight and interested in women physically, it'd be better to live with a man because I wouldn't have to stay in shape and be attractive, and I'd co-habitate with someone interested in staying up all night watching all the Star Wars movies followed by Platoon and Full Metal Jacket (and you know those are good for continuous repeat viewing!!!)

I'd also have a loyal partner if I wanted someone to relive the Maryland Sniper adventures with.

But anyway, supporting the relgious doctrine and negative population growth would mean a total lack of interest in getting married for those men and women. Christian women wouldn't need us for anything then.

On the other count, it would be far easier to control our population if we were all Hedons and just used birthcontrol.

Marriage and love would last, just like social security.

Jargo
01-02-2003, 08:33 AM
Negative growth is bad in the respect that like i said earlier it's the lack of kids and growing number of elderly that poses a problem. If people were forced to surrender their homes in old age to their children they would not be happy neither would the children having to suffer elderly relatives as a consequence. invontary euthanasia would most likely become commonplace as children sought to relieve themselves of the burden of caring for a geriatric. Geriatrics do not a good nanny make. I would balk at leaving children in the care of an elderly person who is prone to distracted thought and clumsy and frail. Someone who will insist that their methods are right and not respect the wishes of the childrens parents and either spoil the children rotten or completely go the other way and ignore them as a nuisance. The elderly are a drain on society. If there were fewer nursing homes then people would find alternative employment like they always have done. As the world seems to be turning into one big leisure park anyway those carers could find employment working in the leisure industry instead. It only takes a little retraining. Ridding the world of the elderly frees up housing like Tycho said. A good home will engender a feeling of well being and a nesting instinct. Women will feel more comfortable and with more space to spread think in a more biological way. We've had baby booms before in the 1940's and the 1980's so it's probably about time we had another, let's get this far ewast war over and done with quickly so the sigh of collective relief when it's done woill set off hormones and pheromones that will lead to liasons that will bring about a baby boom.
Another reason for women not having babies but aborting instead is that ther really hasn't been a good attitude to adoption. Now that it's getting easier to find parents for kids, (single parents and alternate lifestyle parents now being accepted as acceptable and decent), women might think twice about going full term if they know that a good home is secured for their infant when they give it up for adoption. before it was only married couples who could adopt, or at least over here it was, that meant fewer people in the adoption pool so there was no reason for women to think it was a viable option. Now it is thanks to a full change in law, women are still going to be in control of their lives, have successful careers and all that they desire but should they get up the duff they can now think about several otions rather than just a dreadful single conclusion. I feel that a woman who terminates is perfectly withing her rights to do so but those who go full term and either keep the baby themselves or give up for adoption should be financially rewarded somehow by governments to help reverse the 'negative growth'.
But then there's the natural selection argument and if that's taken as a good argument then the third world should be allowed to do it's own thing. If a people are lost through starvation then that's nature selecting. People who are lost to natural disaster like volcano or flood or earthquake, that's natural selection. The poor are more likely to overbreed and it's usually the poor that nature selects as losers. nature seeks the weak and eliminates quite effectively. It's only the interferrence of the strong that stops that from happening. Every time there's a natural disaster the western world rushes out to 'help' instead of sitting back and letting nature do her stuff. We as humans are getting it all so wrong. Defying the natural way of life.
There are rarely individuals who deserve to live longer lives because they still demonstrate high levels of cognitive power and physical ability into late ages, scientists and professors who teach are one aspect that would benefit from allowing individuals to live longer lives but over all I think the world would be better off just letting people go rather than clinging onto the weak. Death has been romanticised and over sentimentalised and it's time people got real and realised that it's just the way of life and stopped being so gushy and emotionally weak about it. Death is an end, there has to be an end to everything so why prolong it needlessly, cruelly in some cases. Hospitals are constantly clooged with elderly patients that doctors refuse to let go of, reanimating them over and over. Just let them go at home. Free the beds so more people in younger stages of life can be treated more quickly and more efficiently. Free up housing and hospitals, euthanase. turn our backs on third world aid and let nature do her thing.

Am I cold and callous? you betcha. I volunteer to be chief euthanaser. I'll gladly administer the final treatment to the old. It would be an honor to serve. It means absolutely nothing to me since I feel no empathy with these people or have any emotional ties. As someone who would like to save the world from sinking under it's own weight I can think of no other solution so therefore I subscribe wholeheartedly to this one.
I believe in no gods, and nor do I believe in fate or destiny. It's not a question of right or wrong just simple logic.

Tycho
01-02-2003, 01:13 PM
I find some of what Emperor Jargo to be saying to be logical, but certainly not paying women to carry to full-term babies they might otherwise abort. I don't like abortion being used as birth control, but I value negative population growth.

As to the elderly, I too find it scary and discomforting to see nursing home patients like Jargo is describing. However, people age differently and setting an arbitrary age like 65 does not settle with me well. Congitive testing, physical testing, required for life-prolongation permits past the age of 65, or 70? Maybe that's a better way to go about it. Then the 66 year old dying of emphasyma could be euthanized, but the 70 year cancer scientist who drives himself to work can continue to work, so long as he tests capable of contributing.

There are different kinds of elderly.

Next, as to rushing to aide 3rd World countries versus letting nature take its course? I agree with a lot of what Jargo said due to the fact that we have people in our own Western countries that we need to take care of first. However, in these nations where they are constantly warring because they are not evolved as a civilization yet, they can get a hold of weapons that can effect the quality and length of western lives, and that's why we help them: security (for the most part). Jealousy breeds hatred, and we don't need it aimed in our direction, so we make friends. That too is logical, don't you think? However, let's limit how friendly we are. For the United States, the country that needs the best, most friendly immediate treatment, is Mexico, so that we can gain revenue while creating jobs down there, so the influx of illegal immigrants will dry up because they won't have to leave their country. (and I know that not all the illegal Latino population is Mexican, but they do form the greatest quantity crossing illegally because of the internal Mexican racism and lack of opportunity down there - pure Spanish descended individuals are elevated high above Native-American descendants and this is just plain wrong). Helping Mexico would help us help ourselves (if you are American and reading this).

Vortex
01-02-2003, 07:11 PM
I just want to toss this out there. Just looking at the other side, before we get a 4th Reich on our hands here...

Offing the elderly...interesting idea, but then I look at world contributions and the "elderly" have contributed the most from their wisdom, experience and time on this planet and observations. Us young, brash, green pups don't have the experience, failures, and understand to make large contributions...our sex drive, egos, and inexperience get in the way. We learn from our elderly, and the elderly pass on their wisdom so we can build upon that and not have to constantly re-invent the wheel. What's the old saying? If you don't understand history you're doomed to repeat it?

I don't know what age you were thinking of, if we did draw an arbitrary line at 65 or in that neighborhood, we wouldn't have the great works we do. We would have lost great authors, architects, engineers, artists, and doctors...long before their experience and wisdom came through. I'm sure they would have stopped painting, working, creating long before they hit that line...I sure would have. Heck I'm sure inflation would be out of this world too. I know I'd demand a larger salary for my time in college, and demand more money for my skill, even though my time in the work place would be short. My life would be cut back by a 1/3 and I'd want time to be with my family, and do the things I've always wanted to do, so I'd demand a large gross sum of cash per year, and then get out in my mid 30's early 40's to enjoy the shortened life.

Natural selection...well I wouldn't be here if that was the case. I had problems as a small child, I've had a few operations and if that didn't get me asthma would have...if we would let nature take its course. I understand you're taking about natural disasters and famine assistance, in lieu of not having doctors, but isn't that our job as fellow humans to help each other out and better our world for our kids?
Since when do we get the right or privilege to play god and pass judgment and willing let people die when we have the means and know-how to help out.

Just on a personal note - I'm all for the elderly soaking up as much cash as the can out of healthcare, especially in the US. The CEO's of the various HMO's and healthcare facilities are grossly over paid and when I need something I have to shell out from my own pocket, even after they take it from my paycheck since they give the nod as to what they want to cover from time to time. I say the old folks should stick it to them and use up enough of their cash so they can't afford that 6th Lotus, or that 3rd winter home in the Swiss Alps. I might think differently if the government went to a social medical system, but the medical system and insurance we have today is backwards...in the US at least.

Jargo - nothing personal, but your statment about "It's not a question of right or wrong just simple logic." Sort of makes me shake my head. I'm sure you could explain it better but, logic is a weird mistress. Who's logic are we talking here? Yours? Mine? Some elected official? Doesn't logic stem from right or wrong, the conclusions from the various sides? Which side out weighs the other? Don't we have to weigh both sides to find an acceptable answer? Logic, along with Truth is a double edged sword. What we think is true or logical at time isn't and we only wind up cutting our own necks with it. Logic, along with truth and even justice is nothing more than a vast grey area that takes time and reason on both sides to come up with a solution or answer.

Is there a logical answer, or a right answer for this question?

If a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving children, is he stealing?

What does logic tell us? The law tells us yes, but morals and conpassion say no? Who's right? What does logic tell us for situations like this? Everyone has a differnt form of logical thinking and reasoning.

But just wanted to throw some alternate view points in. I'd have to hear more from both sides before I'd finally cast a vote on these topics, but there's never a perfect solution when dealing with life, people, and feelings.

Jargo
01-03-2003, 06:42 AM
Read my comments on over sentimentalising. Logic is what is left after you eliminate emotion. Emotion has no place in solving world problems. Emotion and 'compassion' are subjective. Compassion leads to a country getting themselves into financial debt sending aid to all the third world countries in the way the UK has. Take out the emotional responses and get back to hard reason and that wouldn't happen.

If a man steals, he steals simple as that. If he can't afford to feed his children he shouldn't be allowed to care for them anymore and they should be moved to a place where they can be cared for appropriately until the man is in a fit position to offer that care himself once more. Again there's too much over sentimentalising with family nonsense. Children are stronger than we're lead to believe, a spell out of the family unit actually makes them stronger as individuals and teaches them more about self resource and self survival. Leaving children in the care of an unfit guardian who cannot provide for them is bad, placing them in safety wherever that may be is good. The welfare of children and the growth of them is prime in my eyes. I would say that it is wrong to simply take a child from its parent permanently but if the father was given chance to prove he could provide or if the effort of providing was taken away for a while so he could adjust his life to put his full concentration in achieving the provision for his child then that is a good thing.

Leaving doctors and scholars etc. out of the equation for a moment I was suggesting that there are countless millions of elderly who are not contributing to society as a whole and are draining resources in many ways. the dead wood of society is best not clung to and disposed of. Obviously there are going to be individuals who are worthy of exeption we will after all need some grand paternal or grand maternal influence somewhere in my vision of a creche society. storytellers are a good aid to education and mature citizens tend to make the best storytellers. But this attitude of clinging to the elderly simply because they have tales of the olden days and they need to tell theuir tales is nonsense. In the last fifty years the media has covered everything so well we have no need of personal testimony by the bucketload. Dwelling in the past is not healthy and I'm suggesting a complete break with all tired traditions and by ridding ourselves of the elderly we would be a young world with future facing vision. The past is over rated. It's a strange place that is nice to visit once in a while but to live there is absurd.

Vortex
01-03-2003, 10:19 AM
long live the supreme ruler for life.

When you install your utopic system, make sure you find some one who fits you ideals, values, and logical, selected way of life...or you might fall prey to your creation before your scheduled time.

EricRG
01-03-2003, 12:54 PM
This is one scary thread.

ANY state sanctioned killing is WRONG. And extremely dangerous. Who's to define who is the "dead wood"? Next thing you know, "dead wood" might be defined as anyone who doesn't agree politically. Or sexually. Or religiously. Sound familiar? As it's been mentioned, Hitler would be PROUD of this thread.

The Overlord Returns
01-03-2003, 01:37 PM
Which is funny, because it was logical reasoning, with a lack of compassion for those suffering, that stopped the world from acting against Hitler for so long.

Britain took the logical stance of not stopping hitler when they first heard reports of the holocaust, as they did not want to adversely effect their country by getting into conflict with Germany. It wasn't until the real "scare" ( an emotion, last time I checked) total german control of europe emerged that Britain, france et al did anything. On the side of the US, there logical decision to stay out of the war didn't change until the highly emotional event of pearl Harbour. Lets not forget the oh so logical decision of using the atomic bomb to end the war quickly. Yes, such a quick and efficient decision, with NO long term repercussions....

So, in Jargo's Reich, the elderly are useless and should be gotten rid of. What of a 20 year old quadriplegic? Get rid of them too. or any person with down syndrome or any other form of mental retardation.........

Man, and I thought I was an ageist for saying 80 year olds shouldn't be allowed to play the lottery :rolleyes:

Jargo
01-03-2003, 05:11 PM
Well naturally it follows that the sick and feeble would also be euthanased. They serve no purpose. But as I say there are exeptions to the rule such as Stephen Hawking whose brain is very useful. Dissidents are dangerous to any state and in my state they would be 'reconditioned' to toe the line. Sexuality or color is of no importance. A persons color has nothing to do with their usefulness and nor does their sexuality or sex. Paedophilia and bestiality are as always just plain sick and not to be tolerated but inter-human sexualities are an individuals prerogative.

Britains hesitance during world war two was merely down to not being ready to fight. Britain underestimated the size of Hitlers war machine and it took time to amass the necessary equipment to combat that. Also after the first world war nobody believed it would happen again and it was a shock to discover that it was actually worse second time around. Britain hoped for America with the larger armed forces to go in first and when America turned a blind eye we were forced to take our small band into the fray and vastly outnumbered, take on the nutter in Berlin. If we had had the atomic bomb at our disposal we would have used it too. Churchill would have used it to win at any cost. And lets not forget that back then nobody really knew what the long term effects of radiation were. But that's straying.

Fourth Reich to you maybe but better society to me. Once the natural disasters had taken care of the non useful the land would be free for development of new cities. Just look at the vast expanses of Africa that could be utilised if the indigenous peoples weren't there, deserts could be reclaimed and built upon. in fact Africa is a ripe place for penal colonies just as Australia was way back. An unforgiving place perfect for the 'rehabilitation' of dissidents and criminals. By removing criminals to such harsh environments we free the prisons in our homelands and remove the threat of crime. Death row would be fast tracked to clear the backlog of hangers on. No hanging around just the job done swiftly. The fewer criminals in the system the better. Too many are constant re-offenders, so simply remove them completely. If you don't learn first time round you aren't ever going to so you pay with your life.

Mass organised worship is nothing if not cultish so there would be none of that. If individuals want to worship some deity they could have a personal shrine at home but mass organised worship is dangerous. The land that churches mosques and synagogues occupy could be better used for housing. So those places of mass worship would be demolished and re-used.

Hitler was a man with great radical vision just like Kennedy. Unfortunately Hitler was wrong and apparently so was Kennedy since he was removed from society before he could disrupt it. It just took a lot longer to get rid of Hitler. Any person with radical vision will eventually be removed somehow from society, society doesn't like radicals. In Brian De Palmas film 'The fury', Brian Denehey says a line that sums this up "What a culture can't assimilate it destroys" Never a truer word spoken. And it's true that in my depiction of the world as I wish it that would be the guiding principle. If it cannot be assimilated then it serves no purpose. So get rid of it whatever it is.
There's also an old adage about clutter around your home, "if something has not been used for more than one year then you will not use it ever so get rid of it."

Getting back to the problem of global over-population, euthanasia provides plenty of business for funeral parlors and the whole death business including florists. boosting the economy no end. In fact, in my world there would be no graveyards and everyone would be cremated. The land taken up by graveyards could be better used for housing. If people need some kind of shrine to the dead they could have something like the Japanese shrines that hold a small flask of the deads ashes and these are moved around a vertical plane and stored in a library of the dead only brought out when someone comes to honor the dead. These libraries would take up a fraction of the space that graveyards do now. It's proved highly successful in Japan so I see no reason why it wouldn't work for the rest of the world too. visits could be on a toll system so the libraries would fund themselves.

I'm not really bothered what other people think of my ideas, as far as I'm concerned I'm right and you're all wrong and that's all there is to it.

2-1B
01-03-2003, 05:37 PM
ditto ! :D

EricRG
01-03-2003, 05:48 PM
Well...

Getting back on topic...

The "Raelian scientists" (ROTFLOL, still) are not going to have to submit DNA of their "clone" for testing. I guess we have our answer.

Tycho
01-04-2003, 03:37 AM
I was disturbed by some of the things that were suggested in this thread.

First, and of much less importance, is the fact that Emperor Jargo, in suggesting such drastic measures, is the radical, first and foremost. If others such as Hitler and Kennedy (as he suggested) had to be done away with because they were radicals to the world's status quo, then what would be the status of Emperor Jargo were he to ascend to that kind of power to change things? I merely point that out because it was an inconsistency in the argument.

NOW ON TO MORE THINGS ABOUT CEMETARIES, CHURCHES, AFRICA'S INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, etc.

The Atom Bomb: Europe is fortunate that the bomb was dropped on Japan, not Germany, as it's effects might've reached far more nations that the intended target one. Had England developed nuclear weapons first, France, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and more may have all learned to regret it - as well as American and Russian troops on the ground. And it would have to have been a surprise attack. Had Germany witnessed all enemy positions drawing back, they might've suspected a bombing that severe, and mobilized so much aircraft to protect the Fatherland, that'd have been hard to hit the target. By contrast, I don't think America landed troops on Japan's mainland soil before the bombing. We were in Okinawa, etc. But I'll have to defer to someone who knows more about that than me. Finally, I'm not saying Japan's civilians deserved what happened to them with the bombings. I'm saying how much worse it would be if not even the intended targets were hit, and repeated nuclear attacks would have to be sustained to effectively target Germany.

I'm not certain Emperor Jargo is not saying 'remove the indigenous people of Africa' so that we can use the land for those who can't find their way in the Western World - that includes anyone from colonists to his prisoner exportation plan. (let alone an appeals process is designed to make sure we do not execute an innocent man, though I think capital punishment might be more merciful than modern incarceration). I think recognizing criminal patterns, moral degenerating, by society, and especially by citizens trained to recognize it in themselves, could be used to pre-empt criminal behavior before it is committed. The movie Minority Report seems to sort of go along that lines - except instead of using psychics, we turn ourselves in and get help - before any crime is committed. That is a whole new discussion in itself - so let's not forget it - but let's come back to it. Meanwhile, getting rid of Africa's indigenous peoples amounts to sheer racism - nothing less. Most indigenous people there are black or brown (Arabic) peoples. There are a lot of reasons they do not live in a society as advanced as the West - many of it is the West's fault. In the meantime, they don't need to act like idiots every time they get access to a new crate full of machine guns - but a lot of that's their culture which was arrested with colonization, and then not allowed to advance in balance with the rate they obtained superior fire-power.

And while we're on the subject, getting rid of people who are not contributing also can amount to racism because many older people of color have been discriminated against, and many more are still growing up in poor communities where they are not educated enough or culturally trained well enough, to impact their advancement into a contributing class of society. This is basically the argument behind affirmative action in a nutshell right there.

Next, places of worship such as temples, churches, and mosques are privately owned by their congregations. I agree we should grow out of these cults. God may or may not exist, but prayer and faith in Him does not change our present conditions that we CAN control: such as many diseases, poverty, hate, and hunger. However, as a free society that values incentives to progress in a mixed high-brid of socialistic-capitalism (which I think is as good as it can get right now if we make a little bit more progress with the socialist aspects of that) we must cherish private property rights. That can be subject to following stricter conditional use permits, such as having congregations meet on someone's residential property if it helps their faith to meet in numbers, but I agree with Emperor Jargo - having large private schools to teach cultism and equally large meeting halls for fellowship are redundant of existing public facilities while land could be used for housing or other public needs.

People need to be taught secular ethics, how to behave logically and what is enlightened self-interest before we can remove God from our popular culture and make faith such a private issue. Belief in God and eternal punishment after death might be illogical, but it is a deterrant to those people that might otherwise think they can escape earthly authorities if they commit a crime. They aren't thinking logically to begin with - at least they believe something. Again, we should have a discussion about crime deterrents and prevention, but that is for later. Meanwhile, I assume you are familiar with Machiavelli and 'The Prince.' It spells it all out from 4-500 years ago to why we have "Christmas at the White House" today.

Obviously, you recognize that the fear of death - of nothingness or discontinuation, prompts belief in the Afterlife in the first place. So know what kind of a fight you're in for with advocating euthanasia - and note - it's not something I'm totally against. I simply don't care for your inclusions in your program, nor its implications and prejudices it implies.

As to graveyards, they are usually private property - and you are right, a business. It is also something of a comfort to know that we can show respect for someone we loved or valued by building them a small memorial in a headstone. At the same time, it's ridiculous and I think that it's true that every 200 or more years beyond someone paying for a burial plot, bodies can be dug up and disposed of through creamation to make room for new bodies. We simply could not have enough room to bury our dead if we didn't do that. People just don't want to think about their parents and grandparents being "thrown away" to make room for another family's money - but that IS the truth of it. Your family plot is there so long as there is the possibility somebody is alive and paying rent on it. In this consumer world, we are even paying rent on our apartments and our mortgages after we are dead - so why should this be surprising? Even creamation and storage of ashes is a little ridiculous. What happens in an earthquake? They call you down to sort through generations of your ancestors with a spaghetti strainer? The dead are best remembered in our memories of them - and for some, prayer helps them, after all - you cared about them and isn't it nice "just in case?" If there is an afterlife, I hope my father's comfortable and well.

Meanwhile, taking away graveyards without a moritorium on burials there would be unwise and insensitive to say the least. Next, it again interferes with private property.

Some cemetaries are public though, I think. The Arlington National Cemetary in the US where many presidents are buried, as well as soldiers, is non-denominational as there are as many Jewish stars there to crosses, as there would be Jews proportional to Christians and Catholics who died serving their country. It serves as much more than just a storage spot for obsolete bio-matter. It is a reminder of what price the freedoms of my country come at, and of what cost going to war over anything amounts up to. That should never be forgotten, and I think the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier says it the best. Whoever lies there symbolizes what we value, and what we fight to protect from what we fear for. Meanwhile, President Kennedy's tomb is there as well, and it reminds us what he, and we as Americans, as human beings, all hope for.

If life and death are not properly put into perspective by the Arlington National Cememtary, I don't know where else they are.

2-1B
01-04-2003, 02:02 PM
If Emperor Jargo ever ascends to such power, I will take the assassin's bullet to keep him in power. :)

Jargo
01-04-2003, 02:41 PM
Just as an adendum to my earlier final post i wanted to say that I hold no truck with racism. I don't regard anyone as any different because they have darker or lighter skin. It's only the same as californians with suntans to me or to Norwegians with alabaster white skin. no difference in the people at all. So I'm not discriminating against anyone on that score as i see all peoples as equal. I was just saying that there are certain areas of the world where they actively resist progress and evolution and that needs to be stemmed. Those vast tracts of land that are peopled by nomads are wasted space and need to be utilised more effectively. I suggest damming the sea and and rivers and flooding the deserts to make them fertile enough to farm. I was going to suggest levelling off some mountain regions to allow for new building but then i realised that without the mountains we have no wind acceleration and without mountains there's no rain on the flatlands. So i'll spare the mountains but the deserts have to go. That means the nomads will have to evolve and learn or perish and die off. I'll spare the rainforests and replant the areas that were decimated only because i like trees and those crazy jungle natives with all their drug infused hallucinatory shindigs amuse me. Also the Orangutans need a home so because i like animals that are funny I'll spare them. I'd also make America sign the land over to the native Americans. On paper only but as a gesture of atonement i think that would be fair. Australia would also be signed back to the Aboriginals on paper only. They would technically own the land but they would not have the powers to veto any building work that went on. They wouldn't suddenly get the power to apply tolls on roads that went through their land for example. But as a gesture I think handing back the land ownership would be a good thing.
I'd probably have to seize control of China and places like North korea. The best solution there is displacement. Disperse the peoples across the globe and use the land for something else. I think I'd probably give north korea to the Japanese government as an overspill population expansion zone. They could modernise to their hearts content and build a new city state there. The South koreans wouldn't mind that i would imagine.
The Falkland isles would be given back to the Argentinians and this whole nonsense of ownership with the UK would end. The Argentinians are welcome to the horrid little lump of rock. I'm thinking that Russia is a useless place so with the toxicity of Chernobyl i think a no go area for that part of the world. Just shut down Russia and repatriate the peoples. They're hard workers and will accept low wages so they'll fit into the rest of the western world quite nicely in the jobs no-one else wants.
The far east I'm still thinking about.... but considering that i would tax fossil fuels out of use and opt for green methods of energy use like hydro electricity and solar energy production I can't see a real use for oil fields anymore. perhaps i'd just obliterate the far east altogether and have done with it once and for all. no more saddam or anyone. yes, that sounds like an excellent idea.

Oh and as for cloning, what sense is there in cloning entire human beings? Just split an ovum and make twins, can't anybody see that nature provides her own clones? Cloning bits is iffy still. depends what bits are cloned. Depends on whether they could graft an arm onto a body so that someone could carry on in useful employment or not. If the person was going to end up with the arm but useless for anything much, then there's no point to the process so just outlaw it all. Burn the research papers and have an end to it. These crackpot alien lovers are just candidates for straightjackets really. Time wasters like that would be seen as dissidents in the world of my mind and therefore incarceration would be the answer to it.They're just filling simple peoples minds with nonsense and that is not a good thing. Lock up the alien loving crackpots. that's the only answer.

Tycho
01-04-2003, 03:02 PM
Cloning is not as simple as twins:

Cloning brings back dead people, physically anyway.

Cloning can make replacements or fool-proof assassins.

Cloning of whole beings for organ harvesting can make homicide happen.

Cloning replacement children can lead to mental child torment.

Cloning pets, or children, increases population, and dissuades positive adoption.

Cloning can reduce our genetic resistance to disease.

Cloning can cure or replace diseased tissues with non-rejectable transplants.

Cloning can create whole classes of people with special attributes - either contentment in positions of inferiority (see Kamino's Clone Army) or those limited by their less-than-average life expectancy (similar thing as the what the Replicants faced in Blade Runner) or it can create people with prolonged lives accustomed to special priviledges that could enslave "lifers," see my social security reform issues as they pertained to cloning in this thread.

No, while I don't want to stemmie progress and think we should learn all we can about successfully cloning humans, I do not ascribe it to be as simple as having twins. Not by a long shot!

Vortex
01-04-2003, 03:48 PM
Well leaving Jargo’s 4th Reich maniacal ravings behind…(which still make me laugh since most times he’s spouting on about personal freedoms and freedom of choice, and yet, it seems to be a sad double standard by the nature of this thread.)

Cloning is starting to remind me of the all the new revolutions this world has gone through. We are just at the beginning stages and have yet to get far enough into it to see the pit falls, and benefits. I think it’s too early to tell whether it is a positive or negative.

I remember reading the stories from authors who fought tooth and nail against the industrial revolution of the 1800’s. Their fears for the future and what industry, machines, and technology would bring since the industrial revolution was just in its fledgling stages.

Then came the fear and hostility toward the car and airplanes.

I remember reading all those sci-fi stories about the rebellion against computers and A.I. Reading the fears and phobia’s about this new strange technology and the entire wretch it could and would bring upon the world.

Yet, all the new revolutions are supported by all of us today to some large extent. We would have trouble living, and getting by on day-to-day things without the items and technologies we have now. I have trouble envisioning life without the computer, the car, the assembly line, mass-produced goods, food, etc. Yet there was so much fear and hostility toward these ideals when they started their life.

And now we have this whole cloning issue. Its been discussed in theory before, and now that it’s a reality, new territory to explore fear is running rampant again. Just like all the other new technologies.

The “space folk” are trying to clone themselves to live longer or live forever but I ask you all this. It’s a little off the cloning topic, but similar. Aren’t we already doing something similar with the computers? Our lives are now on-line. We bank on-line, date on line, shop on line, communicate on-line, people even have sex on line. We save photos, memories, and letters on our computers and we are always after more memory, faster processors - things to make our lives easier. Heck some of us would prefer an automated dog or robocat vs. a real living pet. We have pocket computers that warehouse the same data, and we’re always looking for ways to save and store personal data. Are we subconsciously trying to use the computer to replace our physical bodies and live forever as data? Where as the space folk are going about it with duplicates of themselves, and odds are using the computer to transfer memories, information and data to themselves at a later date? Which group is pushing for immortality faster? The space folk or us?

Just a thought…but I think we are hitting the point where we’re on the threshold and fear of the unknown is setting in. There’s always good with the bad and bad with the good. If we don’t try we’ll never know.

Not to be left out is the fact that Mother Nature usually has the last say, and life always seems to find a way to balance itself out.

sith_killer_99
01-04-2003, 03:49 PM
Cloning is not as simple as twins:

True. But many of the issues surrounding the controversy are parallel. Two people walking around with the same DNA make-up. If one twin kills someone, how do you prove which one did it?

Just because you clone someone that does not mean that they will be the same (ie Scientist, athlete, politician) as the original. It only means that they may be predisposed to that thing.

However, there are additional issues, to be considered, such as using 30 year old DNA for a new baby.


Cloning brings back dead people, physically anyway.

Cloning can make replacements or fool-proof assassins.

These two kinda go hand-in-hand. The reality is that it is difficult enough to get a viable DNA sample from someone who has been dead for a while. In many cases it is next to impossible. Take note, I said a viable DNA sample.

Add to that the difficulty of reusing that DNA. The possibility of bringing someone (say John F. Kennedy) back from the dead is virtually impossible.

BTW, did they ever find Hitlers body? I don't think so, so no worries there...BTW, he wanted to be an artist LONG before he became a dictator. He also failed the physical for the German Army, they only took him in a time of war.


Cloning of whole beings for organ harvesting can make homicide happen.

Why would this ever be seriously considered? First of all you are talking about murder...a clone is still human. That aside, stem cell research and cloning individual organs is much easier and would have a much higher success rate. Oh, and there is that whole issue of, it wouldn't be murder.


Cloning replacement children can lead to mental child torment.

Possibly, but then again so can a lot of other things.

The truth is, getting pregnant and having another baby because you lost one could do the same thing.


Cloning pets, or children, increases population, and dissuades positive adoption.

I respectfully disagree, the same arguement was made for children when fertility experts and artificial insemination were introduced, has either one of these lead to worldwide overpopulation?

As for pet cloning, I don't see it becoming a way of life anytime soon. It would be way too expensive for the meager benefit of having a genetic copy of a pet you once loved.

As for the issue of pet adoption...I am biased. My wife and I adopted a dog from the humane society. It had the worst psychological problems I have ever seen. She must have been beat pretty bad.

Our next dog will be a pure breed puppy that we raise. Say what you will about adoption, but I have a kid and I need to feel more comfortable that our daughter is safe around the dog.


Cloning can reduce our genetic resistance to disease.

Possibly.


Cloning can cure or replace diseased tissue with non-rejectable transplants.

Again, I say, the future of medicinal cloning lays in stem cell research and individual organ cloning.

P.S. Let's hope Jargo doesn't reach that level of power until he is 65.;)

Exhaust Port
01-04-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
Cloning is not as simple as twins:

Cloning brings back dead people, physically anyway.

Yes but that could mean a lot to parents who lost a child at a young age.


Cloning can make replacements or fool-proof assassins.

The ability to be an assassin is mental not physical. Cloning only controls physical attributes to a limit but has no control over how that person/clone will act. Definately not fool-proof.


Cloning of whole beings for organ harvesting can make homicide happen.

I think the interest in cloning for replacement organs doesn't involve cloning a whole person to get one organ. The hope is the technology would allow for creation of individual replacement organs not requiring the whole body.


Cloning replacement children can lead to mental child torment.

Again, cloning doesn't control the mental state of the person, their environment does that.


Cloning pets, or children, increases population, and dissuades positive adoption.

So does having sex and producing your own offspring. The solution to the adoption issue is to stop unwanted children from being created in the first place, not hoping there will be enough families interested in adopting them.


Cloning can reduce our genetic resistance to disease.

WILL not can. For this reason alone cloning a new human should be not allowed.


Cloning can cure or replace diseased tissues with non-rejectable transplants.

A perfect use for this technology. The first step though is creating the ability to clone a whole human before you can clone just a part of one. Sadly, people who think they know better have taken this as a sign that it's OK to clone a whole human.


Cloning can create whole classes of people with special attributes - either contentment in positions of inferiority (see Kamino's Clone Army) or those limited by their less-than-average life expectancy (similar thing as the what the Replicants faced in Blade Runner) or it can create people with prolonged lives accustomed to special priviledges that could enslave "lifers," see my social security reform issues as they pertained to cloning in this thread.

I agree that more sinister minds can attempt to create a single-type civilization but the key issue that many people don't seem to understand that cloning can't do that. Cloning produces the human not the ability or desire, that is a result of environement. A creator could control what the looked like but looks can't take over the world.

Yes, some people have genes making them more capable of say running faster, throwing farther, remembering better, etc. Unless that person is trained and taught to expand their abilities they will never be known. Arnold Schwartzeneger has a knack for building muscles (ignore the fact that he used drugs to do it) but without training for decades he would still be a skinny Austrian.

Learning how to clone a whole creature was a big step in the direction of learning how we work. It'll be interesting what benefits we'll see in the next few decades. Sadly a few groups are exploiting this ability for all the wrong reasons. The only way this will be controlled is by legal action which will only hinder the learning process for Science and hurt our benefits. Thanks a lot you Alien Freaks.

Tycho
01-04-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port


The ability to be an assassin is mental not physical. Cloning only controls physical attributes to a limit but has no control over how that person/clone will act. Definately not fool-proof.



I meant that a genetic replica could be made to have the same fingerprints, (possibly) the same voice pattern (eventually) and then unscrupulous people could train the clone to assasinate their progenator - heck, they might not even be told it's their progenator - all the conspirators would need is an assassin with duplicate fingerprints - though like I said, I'm not certain if Cloning would produce that - let alone the fact that maybe the donor burned a hand as a child, etc. So it might not work as well as the conspirators hope.

Needless to say, without growth acceleration, which we probably cannot accomplish in the here and now, replacing a target with a clone can not happen. I was not suggesting that could.




I think the interest in cloning for replacement organs doesn't involve cloning a whole person to get one organ. The hope is the technology would allow for creation of individual replacement organs not requiring the whole body.

I hope so! That would be great, once it's realized. Still, it's hard to imagine a heart or kidney growing without a body, in somebody's petry dish. Then again, if they do succeed in doing that, maybe I should go down and contract to have a few kidneys, a heart, and a liver made. (I was serious, but now I have to make a joke...) I can bring my replacement stomach in a jar to restaurants in case a buffet special allows for seconds - I want to make sure I have room to get my money's worth, right?

However, does the brain decay? That'll be the toughest hurdle to creating eternal life. Brain transplant anyone?



Now, what I meant by torturing a cloned child replacement mentally, was by forcing them or too strongly encouraging them to follow in the footsteps of their donor. A clone of Michael Jordan might not want to play basketball for example - and he'd learn to hate it if his parents kept pushing him towards the net.




So does having sex and producing your own offspring. The solution to the adoption issue is to stop unwanted children from being created in the first place, not hoping there will be enough families interested in adopting them.

Agreed! Birthcontrol education should be taught to every one - and a full program about contraceptive devices, not just an abstinance program.




WILL not can [reduce the survival rate of our species by diminishing our diversity]. For this reason alone cloning a new human should be not allowed.

Maybe, but maybe donor cells from an adult who's genetic code has adapted to resist chicken pox, influenzas, etc. from experience with illness as a child, would - as a beneficial side effect - produce a clone offspring that has natural defenses against most human deseases from the time of birth. The point being, we don't know anything for certain.




A perfect use for this technology. The first step though is creating the ability to clone a whole human before you can clone just a part of one. Sadly, people who think they know better have taken this as a sign that it's OK to clone a whole human.

They are probably malcontents with modern religions who are doing this because they want to find a way to scream out their frustrations with our ultra-conservative, paranoid, and self-righteous religions that breed in hypocritical societies and they've found a more creative way to do it than by crashing airplanes into tall buildings.

Besides, it's just as possible that aliens created us as it is that God created us. Maybe Zues, Mars, Apollo, Aphrodites and friends were real Gods. But it doesn't mean that the first aliens that come around were are creators either. Or that God didn't create aliens who then one day created us, etc. etc. etc.

Whoever made us, did so by influencing genetic designs found in our common DNA with animals and even plants at a most basic level. They modified the genome, even if it was fate acting on evolution alone. Evidence for evolution can be sought after and tested - and it is likely to become closer and closer to being proven. That doesn't mean that God didn't cause evolution, or God didn't create aliens that aided evolution, etc. etc. But the earth is billions of years old, yet the Bible-literalists will swear it is only 5,000 years old and you could teach them everything that can be taught about all of man's knowledge of science, bringing them out with a PhD in geology, etc. and they'd still swear by their faith because most won't allow themselves to get the education, because they are afraid it wavers their faith. The same can be said about Creationists ignoring evidence of evolution.

Cloning may well be our next step in human evolution. If we clone humans that can survive cancer, HIV, anthrax, and Rush Limbaugh, they may well indeed prove the survival of the fittest, and the species might be pretty similar, but we will have evolved.



Learning how to clone a whole creature was a big step in the direction of learning how we work. It'll be interesting what benefits we'll see in the next few decades. Sadly a few groups are exploiting this ability for all the wrong reasons. The only way this will be controlled is by legal action which will only hinder the learning process for Science and hurt our benefits. Thanks a lot you Alien Freaks.

I'm not sure what they are doing is wrong. I'm also not sure that aliens did not create us. I'm not going to join the Raelians because their leader might've met the wrong aliens. Obviously Michael Jackson's creator alien is different from ours ;)

What the Realians ought to do is get the child public medical attention by all the specialists that care to be involved. If the child is a live clone, and there is any chance of that meaning it is weaker than the average human, then it should be given the best fighting chance to live. I know that some of the Raelians are doctors, even family doctors and definitely geneticists, but now they must become politicians too, and recognize that the best thing is for the parents to retain custody, but for outside doctors to double-check the work. I think it would be absurd for anyone to take the girl away from her mother, though.

In the meantime, if the child is a clone or not, all this attention while it's this young of baby and unaware of its surroundings, will not effect its developing mental health. However, when the girl is older, if reality TV follows her around like Kelly Osbourne - well you can see the effects by watching that family...

Jargo
01-04-2003, 08:47 PM
Why does there need to be a creator? We are just random atoms that banged together enoght times to sort of coagulate into gelatinous mass that evolved from there to here. Why must humankind have these quasi-mystical crutches to lean on when their brains can't handle the science? Fine if you really want to believe all that but the chances of anyone proving that there's some divine force controlling us are about the same as finding sentient life anywhere else in the universe. That's just madness that is, mysticism is what happens when the mind puts up all the barriers and finds some other safer form of logic and reasoning.

As to the cloning of body parts, it's all very well to think that you grow an arm and graft it on but nine times out of ten that arm will be rejected by the body regardless of whether it's the same genetic make up as the arm that was there before. How many people have had severed limbs successfully grafted back on. not many. they either wither and fester or they end up butchered and surgeons make a real mess of getting the limb to work properly. To think you can just sew an arm or leg or whatever back on is silly. My point about twins is that if you clone a whole person they won't be a clone because times change and attitudes change so the external influences that shaped the original persons mind ad personality won't be the same as those that shape the clone of that person. Essentially they'll look similar or identical if you want to quibble but mentally they will be their own person and not a clone. You can give a clone the genes of an athlete but it doesn't mean the clone will also be athletic, just that the clone will have the body fit to be an athlete to start with but if the clone develops a personality that prefers to slob out and play video games and get obese and hate women for fun then that's not a clone. Just the genetic make up is cloned and the outward appearance is similar. So what's the point of cloning a whole human? You might as i said just as well split an ovum and have twins if you want two people to look similar. It amounts to the same thing as cloning a whole person, distinct personalities but similar looks. The cloning of humans is just a ridiculous notion. Whatever ailments a test tube boffin eradicated by cloning tissue matter, there would be a swift replacemnt. That's the very nature of life. We thought we'd beaten tuberculosis but that's back, if we beat one cancer then another will appear, A constantly mutating virus like HIV or the common cold will never be beaten so what's the point of trying to create some kind of superhuman that is gene perfect when they aren't going to be if they still get laid low by the common cold because that's something they can't opt out of in the laboratory mixing bowl.

Exhaust Port
01-04-2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
Maybe, but maybe donor cells from an adult who's genetic code has adapted to resist chicken pox, influenzas, etc. from experience with illness as a child, would - as a beneficial side effect - produce a clone offspring that has natural defenses against most human deseases from the time of birth. The point being, we don't know anything for certain.


It doesn't really work that way. For example both your parents have had chicken pox making them resistant to future infections but their future offspring don't benefit, they must get chicken pox themselves.

Genetics are pretty well understood at this point and a basic rule is that diversification is good for our species. It allows us to survive constant onslaught from viruses and bacteria. Once you start to shrink the gene pool those same viruses are more and more successsful at infecting us.

One of the problems with growing a indangered species is that there is limited genetic variation available to grow their numbers from. Without those variations one particular string of a virus can come through and wipe out the whole bunch. We don't have any method of introducing "random" genetic variations at this time but perhaps that will change as this technology grows.

Diseases survive by exploiting our genetic weaknesses. Shrinking our gene pool only weakens our ability to fend off those diseases. This is the problem that I have with these Raelians. They've decided that they know more than the genetic experts and have gone and started producing clones. They see themselves as "explorers" in a necessary field not realizing that this "field" of cloning full humans will only hurt our species in the long run. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

There has already been a society built on a reduced gene pool that has been studied and shown problems associated with this; the Amish. Of course what might take their society 100 years will take only a few generations of clones to do.