So cloning of Woolly Mammoth has taken disturbing turns...
We're aware how there are plans and well preserved DNA to bring back Woolly Mammoth. Most promising DNA found well preserved state during this year.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/12/boyalife-ceo-plans-to-clones-woolly.html
Even Cave Lion is at plans.
http://sputniknews.com/world/20151118/1030294471/russian-scientists-may-clone-cave-lion.html
But what's quite disturbing to many is that the businessman plans to clone humans. It's already questionable enough to clone cows that would be turned to food.
World first cloning factory as they call it.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Why anyone would want to bring back a long dead ancient beast is beyond me. I don't know why people would want to cause so much damage to the ecosystem
There are so many unknowns about the species that could be studied this way. Plus, Jurassic Park style money making opportunity! Eh? Eh?
What are the side effects? Apart from newborn species of animals that were previously extinct dying as soon as they're born because they can't survive in the current habitats? Because that's worse enough already. There's no need to clone humans, our species is overpopulating already.
I think it's pretty interesting to be honest. If we can do this, what's next? Science is amazing.
Actually that's only true in certain countries - in the next couple of years, the rate of population increase is predicted to start decreasing, and in a hundred years or so the population of the earth will start decreasing in all likelihood, as more and more people in the western world are choosing not to have children, a far cry from the days in the west when religions which idealised 8-child families were rampant.
[Institute Intensifies]
Dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun
Sure, cloning a mammoth has ethical implications, but this is one of the times that I'm all for doing it purely because we can. Bringing back an extinct species is absolutely amazing and will stand testament to the incredible system that is science. As for human cloning? I don't necessarily see anything morally dubious about it. I wouldn't want to clone myself but if soneone else does I don't see why it should be shot down without question. I'm not saying start cloning everyone, but a serious discussion about cloning people should be had instead of labeling it bad and moving on.
That doesn't mean Humans won't continue to overpopulate the planet, even if the rate has decreased it would only slow down the rate by so much. And due to the unpredictable nature of humanity, whose to say those people in the Western world won't change their minds?
Aren't synths made of Shaun's DNA? Danse is a synth, you can romance him.
[Incest Intensifies]
If they were to come back indeed, their immune systems wouldn't be a match for the pathogens around today.
Eh, a fresh autopsy would still tell us a lot.
Well that's not necessarily true. It's not like a newborn has a worthwhile immune system anyways. The mammoth would need to acclimate to modern bacteria and viruses more than anything.
Well it's not technically "cloning" the Woolly Mammoth; it's more creating a hybrid of the Asian elephant (which roams the earth now) and the Woolly Mammoth. They're suggesting that doing this will help the current Asian elephant be able to live in colder parts of the world:
Source.
That's a good thing, as Asian elephants are currently on the endangered species list. It would be nice if they were able to help African elephants in a similar fashion, as many predict they will become completely extinct by 2020 because of the massive poaching going on in Africa.
There may still very well be environmental consequences of creating these hybrids, such as the elephant invading colder areas and eventually decimating other species which normally would thrive without the elephants present, which is why I'd believe some scientists might be against it.
This company is also in the business of bringing dead pets back to life too, which I find to be wholly disturbing. When a pet dies, they're dead. Getting over death is a part of life, and playing with that just brings up so many ethical questions. If they plan to clone humans in the future as well, I cringe to think if people would want to bring their dead human loved ones back to life, what would happen.
It will drop, country's are starting to control their populations. China has been for years and it worked great for them, they made a system where family's with only one child have special treatment like bigger salaries and free health care, they also have a higher authority than bigger families, also they've upped the age of requirement for marriage.
Yeah, sure, there are knowns and unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns, thing that we don't know that we don't know.
Did you just quote Rumsfeld?
isnt human cloning banned by the scientific ethics board besides it could prove to go horrifyingly wrong because we dont know what side effects could happen or what these clones could be capable ofthey could be geneticaly modified to be stronger than an average human or worse as for animals it could completely mess up the ecosystem especially with hybrids
Because there aren't a million movies, video games or books about how this is a bad idea. Right? Right?!
That doesn't mean the population won't decrease, it'll still increase but just at a slower rate, pretty much slowing down the inevitable overpopulation crisis.
An absence of evidences isn't evidence of absence!
That can be done with normal human embryo, it has little to do with cloning.
Something to think about...
The population isn't nearly as important as the rate at which the population consumes resources. For example, a middle-class American family of fours goes through several times the amount of resources as a poor. Nepalese family of twelve.
We'll be faced with an overconsumption crisis much sooner than an overpopulation crisis.
True, add the decreasing population of pollinator insects such as Bees, and the amount of over-caught/over-fished species, we will probably face over-consumption first, not even going to mention how over a billion tonnes of meat alone is wasted on a yearly basis![:\](https://community.telltalegames.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
Well, the idea sounds cool, sure, but uh... Yeah, let's not clone.
I'm for cloning mammoths. I'm also not for cloning Donald Trump because that guy's a fool.
Nope, I'm quoting The Boondocks quoting Rumsfeld.
enter link description here
You'd rather see that douche naked?
Acceptable.
I meant to say cloning. I'm on a tablet. My autocorrect is shit.
But, nah, it would just be a genetic duplicate of that person as an infant. I wouldn't mind something like that being used by parents who lost their child at a very young age.
Well if the deceased child was young enough, why not just try for another baby instead--you know, the traditional way? Cloning a child who had died and expecting the new child to be exactly the same as the deceased is just...wrong on so many levels. Due to environmental factors and the effects of the "nurture" part of the "nurture and nature" theory, a genetic duplicate should not be expected to replace and be exactly like the deceased child, and that's the exact expectation of parents in that case (otherwise as I said, why not just have another child the traditional way? It would be loads cheaper and easier.)
I realize that losing an incredibly young child can be extremely taxing and saddening. As a devoted parent, you prepare for at least nine months of your life, expecting a new addition, and then--a sudden and unexpected loss of the lowest blow--your newborn child dies a few months or years etc. after it's born. That's hard. However, trying to replace that void in a family's hearts with a child that is intentionally created to be an exact replacement to fit the exact hole left by the deceased? That won't work. Even identical genetic twins don't have identical personalities, so you can't expect the clone to be exactly the same as the deceased child either. Plus having that expectation on that child-clone cannot lead to a healthy life. What happens if the child-clone is always compared to the deceased child, and if the parents push the child-clone to be like the deceased, even when they can't be like the deceased? What happens when friends and family come to visit the new baby, only to look at the new child with disturbed, though well-meaning looks? What if the child gets those looks his/her whole life? What could that do to a child trying to grow up?
No way man. Not a good thing to do.
I imagined it being a "give your child another chance at life" kind of mentality. As for the personality differences due to environmental influences, that's why I stipulated that this should only be done at a very young age, before the child has developed any distinctive personality traits. I'm also envisioning a pretty involved process involving psychological assessment of the parents and such. I don't know. I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I can't really imagine a situation in which the parents/caregivers would pass a psychological assessment of that nature. As I said, if the individual to be cloned was at such a young age when it's argued personality wouldn't even have developed yet, then why not try for another child via some other means? Intercourse, in-vitro fertilization, adoption--these are all options easier and cheaper (even though IVF is expensive, I imagine it would be cheaper as well, since we don't even have a price on cloning humans yet) than cloning. The only reason parents/caregivers would want a cloned child and not a child via some other means is exactly because they expect the new child to be exactly the same as the old child, which is not a healthy mentality to have.
And no, it's not exactly "giving your child another chance at life." The deceased child is dead and gone, and they will never be back. It's tragically unfortunate, and it's incredibly sad, but it's a fact of life, and it's something that must be accepted. The clone will never be the same as the original, and vice versa. They should not be expected to be the same, as this can lead to unhealthy behavior from the parents/caregivers. No one should make the mistake of thinking that bringing a cloned replica of the deceased to life would be the exact same as bringing the deceased back to life, because that's just plain not the case, and making that assumption would be unfair to the new child.
Although I disagree with you, I appreciate where you're coming from. Whenever humans have to deal with loss, of course it's an incredibly difficult thing. But the way in which we overcome the loss of a loved one is to eventually create new engaging relationships with others, that replace the lost relationship of the loved one. We don't overcome by dwelling on the past and what could have been, and we don't overcome by projecting on to people in ways that are not fair to them, especially someone as innocent as a newborn.
And I for one welcome our new cloned overlords.
The only thing I can see cloning good for is the cloning of organs.
All I can say is..
Science has gone too far..
I'd clone myself and make love to myself! :33