• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Therapeutic Cloning


  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#31 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 January 2005 - 10:30 PM

http://education.yah...6/z0031600.html
zygote
NOUN: 1. The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.


Fair enough Aubrey I stand corrected and will remember as I have tended to use oocyte as analogous to *egg* and have mostly heard the word *zygote* distinguished as *fertilized* so I falsely assumed that there exists an *unfertilized* state as well. I should have checked first.

At least it is not another American versus British English thing. ;))

#32 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 11 January 2005 - 10:45 PM

I have no contribution here. It's not within my competence.

But allow me to express my admiration for the people here who are learned and constructively articulate in the exposition of their ideas.

"They help also who applaud." Susma

Susma

#33 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 243
  • Location:US

Posted 11 January 2005 - 11:16 PM

I find that a more encompassing view of intelligence helps one to avoid the potentiality error - intelligence is the important thing, not the form, components or manufacturing process. I would argue that matter currently capable of becoming an intelligence at some point in the future has any no greater moral worth than matter that does not, and that greater likelihood of becoming an intelligence within time X does not imply greater moral worth. (Although it does imply greater economic worth, of course, a completely different thing that is unfortunately often conflated into the discussion).

At some point in the future, any and all matter will be capable of becoming a part of an intelligent being as a result of the actions of other intelligent beings. I don't see a good argument for privileging some forms matter simply because they got there first.

Worth as an intelligence in my view is a function of level of cognitive capabilities plus an associated store of memory resulting from the action of past cognitive capabilities; an animal and a very young human are not significantly different in this respect. Skin flakes and zygotes are not significantly different from one another in this respect. Grass and sand are not significantly different from one another in this respect.

This is not to say that these things do not have value to me; but value is subjective. I find the suffering of animals to be deeply disturbing, for example - a better future through technology can be envisaged in which we do not *have* to cause pain or let pain happen. Animal experiments could (and should, as soon as possible in my view) be replaced with simulational experiments, animals with a propensity to cause suffering could live in simulated environments. These are worthy goals in my mind. Other people like to shoot deer, and my future health depends on the suffering of tens of thousands of laboratory animals - both disturb me, and you can no doubt extrapolate my views on abortion from this and my comments on the worth of medical research elsewhere.

That, however, is a different topic from the matter of using early stage embryos as research materials. They are not capable of even the most rudimentary cognitive abilities, and have no data associated with past cognition - I lose no sleep over them as I do for the laboratory mice. They are not intelligent, not capable of suffering, not significantly different from blood samples or DNA in the lab. To refuse to participate in embryonic research is a right, but to attempt to suppress it (as for any other ethical medical research) borders on attempted murder - the cost of any delay in medical research into our most basic cellular processes and age-related conditions is horrific.

http://www.fightagin...ives/000020.php

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:12 AM

Welcome to the forums bioconservative. I know you’re being hit by questions from many directions at once and it might be hard to keep up, but I’ll throw in my own two cents as well. Feel free to respond when you have time.

You’re argument seems to be that a fertilized zygote has the potential to grow up in to a full-grown human being and thus should be given the same rights as full-grown human beings. Many of these end up flushed down the toilet, but as you say, that may be analogous to a 21-year-old adult dropping dead because of a congenital heart defect. Unfortunate but unavoidable (assuming the 21 year old never found out about the heart defect). Killing this 21 year old the day before he was going to die of his heart defect would still be murder even if you could prove he was going to die the following day.

The issue really does come down to one of intrinsic worth. Does a fertilized zygote with the potential to grow up to be a human being have the same intrinsic worth as a grown up human being? I say “no” and cannot really see an argument that doesn’t involve a religious basis, and I look forward to being enlightened.

You are absolutely right on one point however. This technology could be incredibly dangerous. It does have the potential to cause a lot of harm and wreak a lot of havoc. Of course the same is true of space exploration, nuclear energy and canned food (canned food I believe was originally employed by napoleon’s armies so they could march all over Europe and still eat). These technologies, though dangerous, have a very high value. The value, I believe, vastly outweighs the danger. I also believe that the same holds true for therapeutic cloning.

Moving past the idea that using ES is wrong for a moment there are potential dangers I can foresee. One potential danger I see is using this technology to increase the “natural” abilities of people. Those with increased abilities might not value those without these abilities nearly as much. And you seem quite concerned that all people are valued equally.

Of course in reality people are not equal. Some are vastly more intelligent than others. Some are much stronger. Some have red hair.

I worked at a medical facility some time ago where many of the patients were brain dead since birth (and well before). Some of these people are over 50 years old, being bed ridden and fed through a tube all that time. Now if I had to make a choice between one of them dying, and you, I would choose one of them. That is because you are obviously a thinking intelligent individual who has a mind more developed than a rat. I value you much higher than a vegetable who only has autonomic brain functioning. There are some people I value much more than I value myself. I would die for them without hesitation or regret if it was necessary to save their lives.

I think value is a very important, and moral function of human nature. It allows us to love (part of the definition of love is valuing another more than one’s self).

I think a world where people did not place value on each other would be an abysmal one indeed.

When you have time I would like to see you address more fully the issue of “value”.

#35 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:41 AM

Bioconservative: I'm sorry if my post seemed overly confrontational. I welcome you to the boards as much as anyone else here. I hope it wasn't me you were ignoring.

After that, I think Reason and Elrond put pretty much everything I was planning to say in better terms than I was planning on using, so I'll just go along with a smile and a nod in their general direction.

I feel your pain, Susma. Sure is interesting though, eh?

#36 sonia

  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 01:15 AM

Hello Bioconservative,

Thank you for starting such an interesting and useful discussion. I have a few questions in light of your comments.

First, will you explain what you think makes something human? Others in the discussion have mentioned that they believe it is cognition that defines humanity, or perhaps even the ability to feel pain. You mentioned the potentiality argument, but chose to use the term “organism” at one point instead of human. Does that mean that a human is only a human once it is born? Or is it sometime before? What are the defining features of humanity?

And then there’s the intent argument. You make the case that it is intent that matters, and that’s why IVF might be ok, but cloned embryos are not. But what about the intent to save lives already in motion? If we can cure diseases through therapeutic cloning, the intent is sound, no? Why should the potential take precedence over the actual?

Also, since nanotech and its dangers came up earlier, I thought I should point everyone to a well-done paper on the issue by Glenn Reynolds.


-Sonia

#37

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 12 January 2005 - 02:19 AM

Aubrey's paper on inter-species therapeutic cloning as a solution for dealing with the much covered ethical issues of ES cells offers 2 proposals:

1. Isolate oocytes from young females that have died and induce them to differentiate into ES cells.
2. Isolate occytes from other species, remove the nucleus and transfer a human nucleus. Then induce ES cell differentiation.

With (2) he sensibly mentions the problems of an adverse immune response (ala GVHD) to the proteins in the inter-species cytoplasm and mitochondria.

Then he provides a solution to the immunogeneic mitochondria by going back to his old strategy of relocating the mitochondrial genome to the nucleus in the hope of removing any intra-species mtDNA.

My questions:
1. what about the other intra-species proteins in the cytoplasm and cell membrane itself - are these expected to be ubiquinated and removed prior to exposure to the host immune system?
2. why underestimate the immune reaction from non-HLA matched human ES cells?

My view is that this is an immunology issue. Ablation of cell surface markers expressing foreign antigen by using a RNAi based technology would provide a faster solution.

#38 JMorgan

  • Guest
  • 645 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Queens, NY

Posted 12 January 2005 - 02:29 AM

Though it sounds ghoulish and hardly would be approved by most members of this organization and society in general, I'd say it'd be perfectly ethical to produce full clones of ourselves to be harvested for medical purposes. The clones would, of course, be brain-damaged or genetically altered to never have anything more than the bare minimum autonomous nervous response neccessary to run their bodies...

You are quite right. I don't approve of this.

While I agree with you on most everything else you said, this I would have a problem with. Frankly, I think this is exactly the kind of scenario which leads people to oppose cloning research.

#39 JMorgan

  • Guest
  • 645 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Queens, NY

Posted 12 January 2005 - 02:58 AM

Technically, the oocyte is unfertilized in therapeutic cloning, but you are not mentioning that its internal genetic composition is altered through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).  Through this process the cell is effectively changed from a haploid to a diploid cell.  To claim that, because the clonote (embryo created through SCNT) is an unfertilized egg cell it is of lesser value than a zygote fertilized in a traditional manner, would be to advocate that clones produced in the future through reproductive cloning technologies would be less than human.

You have very good points. The resulting clone certainly would be just as human as any of us, and certainly no less equal. But transferring my DNA, for example, into an unfertilized egg (human or otherwise) which will then be used a few days later to create stem cells for myself with no chance of rejection - I hardly even consider this cloning.

Hopefully I will be able to change your mind Mal.  And let me assure:  I am very well informed.

Perhaps we can learn from each other.

I am curious. You mentioned that you might support therapeutic cloning if the resulting embryos were not allowed to develop past a certain stage. When you started this debate, were you looking to change people's minds, or were you looking for answers yourself?

I've found that when I ask questions like what you are asking, I am really trying to meet my debaters half-way. Are you looking for an ethical way to support this research?

#40 JMorgan

  • Guest
  • 645 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Queens, NY

Posted 12 January 2005 - 03:15 AM

From Dr. Aubrey de Grey

I am delighted that a clearly well-informed bioconservative has identified ImmInst as a good place to learn more about the pro-longevist position and also to educate pro-longevists about the bioconservative position.  Bioconservative: I very much hope you will stay the course (as you have already indicated you intend to).

Aubrey de Grey, I am always excited to see you post here. You and Ray Kurzweil are two people who have profoundly affected my life. Keep up the good work! ;)

A note on conservatives. Speaking as one, I do think that if any progress is to be made in this field, we need the support of the conservative community.

I don't think I can emphasize enough how huge an impact Nancy Reagan had when she announced her support for stem cell research. Many conservatives listened and awoke to the realization that these technologies can have profound impacts on disease and aging. And though he's hardly conservative, I don't think any Republican has done more for this than Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Here is the real challenge: You want conservatives to support therapeutic cloning? Convince Rush Limbaugh to support it and you will get 20 million more. [thumb]

#41 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 12 January 2005 - 03:50 AM

Actually malchiah I am not comfortable with this part either for the record.

--armrha, strange mood today...

I should hope immortals destablize all culture.


I don't think it is even likely as the real threat longevity presents of a slippery slope are global societies becoming rigid, too homogenized. But it is hard to credit stagnation as a looming threat. Clonote Wars are much more sinister sounding.

It should be possible and certainly no harder than now to cohabit this world if we all have a common sense of the *sanctity* for life, especially for that of the presently living even more than *potential* and hypothetical ones and that we *value* the difference.

In fact if cultures felt their chosen existence less threatened they might war less and as the members achieve longevity cultures survive represented by the individual members but here we are discussing therapeutic cloning not the conduct of immortal beings, which it is quite fair to say we still aren't.

armrha says:

I'd say it'd be perfectly ethical to produce full clones of ourselves to be harvested for medical purposes. The clones would, of course, be brain-damaged or genetically altered to never have anything more than the bare minimum autonomous nervous response neccessary to run their bodies...


That which can be done will be done.

Isn’t that perhaps the slippery slope that Bioconservative fears?

Too late actually but I suggest it's very fair to discuss what we should do far more than just what we shouldn't. Armrha is entitled to his opinion but at least he is talking openly about his position especially since many can also openly disagree.

Would we condone such an effort as a society, let alone this organization?

I doubt it.

Could everyone agree to change their mind someday?

Of course the possibility of abusive conduct won't go away even if many of these procedures are proscribed by law, in fact it could be considered more attractive to a society like ours so indulgent of its wealth that like its support for organized vice discovers a lucrative market for illicit biotech that sells better than the most expensive illegal drugs today. Will banning all such tech make it stop if the *science* is prevented from going forward?

How far back do you want to repeal the Renaissance?

How much of a good thing is enough to force us into a self imposed dark age?

That is the slippery slope I think many of us fear.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 January 2005 - 12:50 PM.


#42

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 07:06 AM

Of course the possibility of abusive conduct won't go away even if many of these procedures are proscribed by law, in fact it could be considered more attractive to a society like ours so indulgent of its wealth that like its support for organized vice discovers a lucrative market for illicit biotech that sells better than the most expensive illegal drugs today. Will banning all such tech make it stop if the *science* is prevented from going forward?

How far back do you want to repeal the Renaissance?

How much of a good thing is enough to force us into a self imposed dark age?

That is the slippery slope I think many of us fear.


Indeed.

Thank you to all involved in this enlightening discussion.

#43 ag24

  • Honorary Member, Advisor
  • 320 posts
  • 29
  • Location:Cambridge, UK

Posted 12 January 2005 - 11:40 AM

Prometheus wrote:

> what about the other [non-human] proteins in the cytoplasm and cell membrane itself -
> are these expected to be ubiquinated and removed prior to exposure to the host
> immune system?

Yes -- they'll all be gone long before the immune system gets going.

> why underestimate the immune reaction from non-HLA matched human ES cells?

My proposal is mainly focused on the autologous situation, where the donor nucleus
comes from the person into whom the ES-derived tissues are eventually introduced,
so this doesn't arise.

Aubrey de Grey

#44

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:22 PM

Which rules out a tissue/organ bank unless the prospective patient has enough forethought.

Would present a lucrative business model were it not for the inevitable solution to the immunological problem.

#45 ag24

  • Honorary Member, Advisor
  • 320 posts
  • 29
  • Location:Cambridge, UK

Posted 12 January 2005 - 04:02 PM

I'm not with you here. HLA genes are nuclear, not mitochondrial, so to the extent that HLA matching allows tissue/organ banks to meet medical needs, tissues/organs grown from ES cells derived after interspecies SCNT are no different than ones grown from ES cells derived from human oocytes. In either case, people with a spectrum of HLA alleles (especially people with homozygous HLA genes) can be used to derive the cells and thence the tissues and organs. Recipients of HLA-matched tissues still need immunosuppressants of course, since the HLA is only one part of the immune system, so there will always be market pressure to develop autologous therapies; that will include bearing down on the time needed do go from patient donor cell to SCNT-derived tissue, i.e. the amount of forethought on the patient's part that is enough.

Aubrey de Grey

#46 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 05:24 PM

ag24:

The only thing you have said so far which I think was ill-judged is to label Mike West as a far worse ethicist than scientist.  One of the most telling arguments that there is indeed a "bright line" at a point later than fertilisation, and indeed later than the 7-day blastocyst stage at which embryos are destroyed in the current method for isolating ES cells, is (I believe) due to West: it is that at 14 days an embryo ceases to be able to split and give rise to identical twins.


Yes, and a slight correction on my part (which I have just edited). The primitive streak is at 14 days (also marking the start of gastrulation), not 7 as I said previously. When we're 'shooting from the hip', so to speak, sometimes there are discrepancies.

A separate sperm and egg, before they fuse, have collectively the potential to give rise to a human life, just as the zygote that they form upon fusion does.  [Note to Lazarus: bioconservative was actually correct in his terminology earlier -- the unfertilised egg is called an oocyte, not a zygote.]


Just for the sake of clarity. The way I have come to use the terminology: oocyte=unfertilized egg/ zygote=fertilized egg/ embryo= fertilized egg up until 8th week of development/ fetus=after 8th week of development.

Thus, active potentiality as you are defining it must have a structural as well as purely chronological component.  I would say it is intuitively intrinsic to the concept of an "individual", human or otherwise, that even though evidently individuals can spring into existence from non-individuals (the only question is when they do), an individual cannot turn into two individuals, hence the pre-14-day embryo is not an indvidual.  Thus, the changes which occur at 14 days and prevent a successful split of the embryo are structural changes profoundly affecting the embryo's moral potentiality, such that a 7-day embryo's potential to become a human is sufficiently passive to permit its ethical use (and, in particular, destruction) for ES cell derivation.  I would like to hear bioconservative's position on this argument.


Of course. The argument you are presenting is a corner stone for the position of accrued moral status. Prior to the formation of the primitive streak at the 14 day marker embryos maintain the capacity for 'twinning'. However the possiblity of twinning does not alter the individuality of the embryo from its beginning. The fact that where there was Bob now there is Bob and Bill does not change the fact that Bob did (and still does) exist. Clearly Aubrey, you can see that there is a metaphysical aspect to this, but I will delve into the more specific aspects of twinning. Twinning occurs in approximately .4% of births and is the result of biochemical disturbances between cells during the early development of the embryo. These 'disturbances' trigger compensatory repair, but with the added effect of altering the developmental trajectories of the individual cells.

The question which should be asked is why each and every cell of the developing embryo do not themselves become embryos? Clearly there are epigenetic factors, up to and including intercellular communication, which allow for the compensatory repair and also would necessarily point to the emerging biological pattern of a distinct individual.

#47 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 05:35 PM

Lazarus Long

Actually you most certainly did make such arguments, at least implicitly.

bioconservative says:
Adults die, infants die, fetuses die, and embryos die. This is one of the sad facts of life, but one that does not detract from the intrinsic value of an embryo which has not proven to be inviable. This gets into the 'potential' of the fetus which I will touch on more later.


As you have already suggested elsewhere the definition of *natural* is highly charged and subjective enough to deserve a lengthy debate on its own. In fact you are slipping in and out of the different uses of the word *nature* when you say a *sad fact of life* as you are either appealing to fatalism or you are stating this as analogous to a *natural fact*.


But yes of course. I am stating it as a natural fact. As far as I know the Immortality Institute has not accomplished its objective yet, has it? ;))

#48 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 January 2005 - 05:47 PM

Immortality can never be a goal, but a way of life.

We're all immortal... unless we die.

#49 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 05:51 PM

I think we are using slightly different terminology. I guess you could say Immortality, in its strictist sense, is impossible, or could never truly be known. But engineered negligable senescence most certainly does seem like an objective of this community. So, would it not be fair in saying that 'biological' immortality is one of this institute's goals?

#50 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 12 January 2005 - 06:08 PM

Lazarus Long
QUOTE 

Actually you most certainly did make such arguments, at least implicitly.

QUOTE 

bioconservative says:
"Adults die, infants die, fetuses die, and embryos die. This is one of the sad facts of life, but one that does not detract from the intrinsic value of an embryo which has not proven to be inviable. This gets into the 'potential' of the fetus which I will touch on more later."

LL:
"As you have already suggested elsewhere the definition of *natural* is highly charged and subjective enough to deserve a lengthy debate on its own. In fact you are slipping in and out of the different uses of the word *nature* when you say a *sad fact of life* as you are either appealing to fatalism or you are stating this as analogous to a *natural fact*. "


But yes of course. I am stating it as a natural fact. As far as I know the Immortality Institute has not accomplished its objective yet, has it? '))


See how easy it is for us to agree? [wis]

However you imply the great fear is not *if* but *when,* along with the corollary fallout from the quest for these technologies.

However I think many of us see the greater concern for *value* is not imparted to life by death, but almost exclusively by the *living*, no matter how brief or brilliant.

Life can exist without death, it should be obvious these are not logically necessary, or dependent relationships by how we define life. However what sacrifice of life we make to genes and country is a matter of choice. So is it by sentience more than substance that we must shine a light on the problem? That is the true center of that *bright line* everyone seeks to be illuminated by the bright light of biology, psychology, and society.

Can a cell that never has a brain have a potential to be human or is this about DNA's properties?

Who are you worried about trying to take such a poor creature to term? Armha?

No one will do that without others to support the effort and why would anyone?

To a great extent this debate over the *moment of inception* is a red herring IMHO unless we are willing to ignore a very important ingredient all those blastocysts still depend on Mr. Bioconservative.

Mom.


Of course you can raise that issue too. ;))

#51 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 06:25 PM

Another aspect of bioconservative's position that I haven't yet understood is that he supports an "intrinsic worth" argument against SCNT but not a "potentiality" one.  How are these two arguments different?  Clearly no one disputes that it is wrong to end the life of an individual: the question is at what stage an embryo becomes an individual. Is that question not precisely the question of potentiality? -- i.e., an entity that either is an adult human or has the "active" potential to become one is an individual, whereas something with only the "passive" potential to become an adult human is not an individual.  What am I missing here?  (I think your "possible/probable" distinction is very shaky, by the way, as "probable" quite definitely means "having a greater than 50% probability of occurring".)


I understand why you may be slightly confused Aubrey. Usually 'intrinsic worth' is associated with arguments for potentiality. Perhaps I should think of a different term to express the position I am trying to communicate. By 'intrinsic worth' I mean to convey the idea that an embryo may not be a fully fledged human being, but it is not a skin cell either. It is something 'in between'. Basically, what I am advocating is a partial acceptance of the 'potentiality' argument. In other words, 'potentiality' is something which needs to be seriously taken into consideration but, in the final analysis, it is an argument based in meta-physics. Either you buy into it or you don't.

Personally, I also have problems with attempts to directly equate 'potentiality' with 'actuality'. To give but one example, there is the terrible tragedy of anencephaly which is the congenital absence of most of the brain. This 'sad fact of life' ;) would seem to indicate that there is never 100% certainty regarding the potentiality of an embryo. This lack of certainty, combined with the fact that potentiality is within the realm of metaphysics to begin with, is the reason I do not personally accept it as valid argument in bioethics. (This is something a significant percentage of bio-conservatives would disagree with me on, but here in the anonymity of cyberspace I feel free to let it hang out a little.

#52 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 January 2005 - 06:31 PM

So, would it not be fair in saying that 'biological' immortality is one of this institute's goals

Yes, for many members, "biological" immortality - life without aging - is a goal
For others, "electronic" immortality - biology integrated with chips - is the aim.

With integrated chip technology, people will solve problems faster and have bodies less prone to accidental death.

#53 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 06:41 PM

Reason

I find that a more encompassing view of intelligence helps one to avoid the potentiality error - intelligence is the important thing, not the form, components or manufacturing process. I would argue that matter currently capable of becoming an intelligence at some point in the future has any no greater moral worth than matter that does not, and that greater likelihood of becoming an intelligence within time X does not imply greater moral worth. (Although it does imply greater economic worth, of course, a completely different thing that is unfortunately often conflated into the discussion).

At some point in the future, any and all matter will be capable of becoming a part of an intelligent being as a result of the actions of other intelligent beings. I don't see a good argument for privileging some forms matter simply because they got there first.

Worth as an intelligence in my view is a function of level of cognitive capabilities plus an associated store of memory resulting from the action of past cognitive capabilities; an animal and a very young human are not significantly different in this respect. Skin flakes and zygotes are not significantly different from one another in this respect. Grass and sand are not significantly different from one another in this respect.


BINGO. Thank you for providing a segue to the point I wanted to make. Transhumanists (or do you guys prefer a different terms to refer to 'bio-radicals'?) always seem to get all agitated when they hear the argument for potentiality. "Oh, that's just spiritual mumbojumbo. The real issue is consciousness." [huh] So why can't you take your newborn baby to the vet and have it put to sleep as you would your dog? Why not, they both possess roughly the same level of cognition. What separates the two??

"Well," you respond, "the infant has the potential to become a fully developed adult human."

Now who's arguing for potentialty?

#54 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 06:42 PM

Lazarus Long: I understand it's a rather disturbing notion, and probably horribly unpopular. I hope it doesn't make you think of me as a monster. I just think of people and the intrinsic value of life in terms of intelligences, not proteins, so it's kind of a natural extension of that philosphy. It would be a crime to take biological compounds away from someone that needs them to exist, or to lead a happy life with a high quality of life. I realize it's shaky moral ground, but I selfishly fear the consequence of treading too lightly into our possibilities more than I fear the damage that such advancements or abuse of technology could cause. Without any justification, I believe the human race will make it past the worst hurdles we've ever come across in the coming decades. I just don't like the prospect of slowly easing into the painful parts, like a person fearful of the temperature of the water in a pool who gradually and agonizingly eases themselves into it, instead of just jumping in and getting the worst of it over with.

It should be possible and certainly no harder than now to cohabit this world if we all have a common sense of the *sanctity* for life, especially for that of the presently living even more than *potential* and hypothetical ones and that we *value* the difference.


That's exactly what I'm talking about. With death viewed as an inevitable consequence of life, people glaze over it a lot more then they do now. Can you imagine a world where everyone placed a high value on everyone elses life? The impact of knowing that those people could live forever without a country's cruise missile bearing down on them would hopefully make the horror a little more meaningful.

And by destabilize, I don't mean destroy. I just mean change. I feel like so much of our society is based on death that an immortal world would require a great deal many changes, and I think all of the changes would be for the better. Reality would of course lie somewhere inbetween, but still...

Of course I could be wrong, and charging as fast as we can into the future could be the worst mistake anyone could ever condone. This could be the most careless and dangerous attitude to have. Rest assured, though. I don't hold any major social or political power. [thumb]

#55 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 06:53 PM

BINGO.  Thank you for providing a segue to the point I wanted to make.  Transhumanists (or do you guys prefer a different terms to refer to 'bio-radicals'?) always seem to all agitated when they hear the argument for potentiality.  "Oh, that's just spiritual mumbojumbo.  The real issue is consciousness."  [huh] So why can't you take your newborn baby to the vet and have it put to sleep as you would your dog?  Why not, they both possess roughly the same level of cognition.  What separates the two?? 

I wouldn't say the reason is because it has a potential of turning into life. It's because we don't have the tools or a clearly defined line to say where the baby stops being worthless and starts being a sentient, intelligent creature. It's kind of a process in time that each biological construct does on it's own to end up being intelligent, so it's hard to measure. Thus it follows it is illegal, because we can't tell when they have 'consciousness' and when they don't. Not a problem the potential worth of the child, but of measurement. Babies do at some point become conscious/intelligent/sentient creatures. Dog's don't seem too, so we don't bother trying to measure it or prevent people from euthanizing them. Would you trust the parents to always be able to make a judgement on the sentience of the child? A doctor?

The real issue here is that we're reasonably sure that the child can't be sentient at the point where you're talking about this imagined crime against them. We can't say that with such certainty a few months after birth, and we start to get unsure on the first day of the baby being alive. Just ask a mother if she thinks her baby is smarter than a dog.

If we had access to everything that went on during the brain, we could probably devise adequate tests of consciousness to determine when it was okay to put your baby to sleep and when it was a crime and when it was inbetween.

I'd think that'd have some serious emotional biological effects on the mother though! It's pretty disturbing putting a dog to sleep, even.

#56 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 06:55 PM

With integrated chip technology, people will solve problems faster and have bodies less prone to accidental death.


Indeed. We could avoid accidental death all together with sufficient retundancy.

Unless we accidently destroyed the whole universe.

#57 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 07:15 PM

Reason

This is not to say that these things do not have value to me; but value is subjective. I find the suffering of animals to be deeply disturbing, for example - a better future through technology can be envisaged in which we do not *have* to cause pain or let pain happen. Animal experiments could (and should, as soon as possible in my view) be replaced with simulational experiments, animals with a propensity to cause suffering could live in simulated environments. These are worthy goals in my mind. Other people like to shoot deer, and my future health depends on the suffering of tens of thousands of laboratory animals - both disturb me, and you can no doubt extrapolate my views on abortion from this and my comments on the worth of medical research elsewhere.


Well, you represent the Utilitarian position quite effectively. And to some extent, this is where many of our differences lie. Is increasing the 'aggregate good' the ultimate objective of ethics? Or are there certain ethical standards which can not be measured by a Utilitarian cost/benefit analysis? Is it ethically acceptable to administer risky experimental treatments to children in the hope that its efficacy will be established and thousands of children's lives saved? Ah, medical ethics. [glasses] Ethically speaking, what is of more importance, the principle of the individual or the 'aggregate good' of the State? I think we know which side the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world would choose.

#58 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 07:21 PM

Dr. Aubrey de Grey

(I think your "possible/probable" distinction is very shaky, by the way, as "probable" quite definitely means "having a greater than 50% probability of occurring".)


Okay, how about 'highly probable' AKA >99%.

#59 ag24

  • Honorary Member, Advisor
  • 320 posts
  • 29
  • Location:Cambridge, UK

Posted 12 January 2005 - 07:42 PM

Thank you for these clarifications, bioconservative. I am also eager for your comments on ANT and my interspecies analogue.

Meanwhile, however:

> I mean to convey the idea that an embryo may not be a fully fledged human
> being, but it is not a skin cell either. It is something 'in between'.

Right. But presumably an oocyte is also something in between, because it can be fertilised and become a live human whereas a skin cell can't. If you prefer, consider that it can also be induced to give rise to an embryo by parthenogenesis, and though such an embryo will not develop to term it is (I would say - would you?) a lot closer to a human than a zygote is. (Ah, maybe you're not saying that, given your comment about anencephaly. Precisely how much brain does a foetus need to be a human, I wonder?)

Thus, what we seem to have is that, on the line between skin cells and adult humans, there is a critical point to the skin-cell side of which there is no problem destroying things and to the other side of which there is such a problem. We know that this point cannot be infinitesimally close to the skin cell, because we have to fit oocytes in between. So, even staying away from my previous appeal to the intuitive meaning of the word "individual", the question we face is whether an embryo sufficiently undeveloped that it can become twins is on the skin-cell side of the moral divide or on the adult-human side. And you do not answer that question, because while the epigenetic factors you mention indeed point to the emerging pattern of an individual they do not necessarily indicate that that emergence process has progressed beyond the critical moral divide. All the characteristics of a pre-gastrulation embryo that you mention (biochemical disturbances, repair, intercellular communication) have analogues in the unfertilised oocyte, so the line you are trying to draw here seems not to be very bright at all. If you disagree, please elaborate.

I think we agree that this all ultimately comes down to the relative brightness of a variety of bright lines, and as you have seen I do not take any strong position on the matter -- I find the twinning argument pretty persuasive myself, but I consider that the placement of these entities on the line between skin cells and adult humans is far too subjective ever to be decided by logic. Hence my interest in technical solutions.

> Okay, how about 'highly probable' AKA >99%.

Wrong direction -- this sentence of yours is what I was commenting on:

> 'Passive' potential implies that an entity and its future developmental
> trajectory is 'possible' rather than 'probable'.

and you were referring to zygotes, including IVF ones, under "probable". But we digress -- let's stick to the substantive issues.

Aubrey de Grey

#60 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 January 2005 - 07:58 PM

Lazarus Long

Life can exist without death, it should be obvious these are not logically necessary, or dependent relationships by how we define life.  However what sacrifice of life we make to genes and country is a matter of choice. So is it by sentience more than substance that we must shine a light on the problem? That is the true center of that *bright line* everyone seeks to be illuminated by the bright light of biology, psychology, and society.


I will quibble a little bit with your usage. Logically, life can/could exist without death. However, practically speaking, it is far from certain whether life can (could in the future) exist without death. I am much less optimistic about numerous aspects of the Transhuman agenda than most of you here probably are. Uploading your conscious by 2020?!? Right [sfty] Or Aubrey's SENS. Is that it Dr. de Grey, just those seven things? All we have to do is transfer our mtDNA to our nDNA, clean up our lysosomes, get rid of extracellular protein cross links....... I just don't see these developments happening as quickly as many Transhumans expect. [This is not to say I do not respect you as a scientist, Dr. de Grey. I am sure you could blow me out of the water with your technical knowledge], but I think that sometimes our hopes have a heavy influence upon our expectations.

Can a cell that never has a brain have a potential to be human or is this about DNA's properties?


I've partially answered this question already, but I'll recap briefly. By 'cell' I assume you mean 'zygote'. If so, then arguing from a position of potentiality I would say yes. The original zygote has the latent potential to become a fully function adult human being. By destroying an embryo you are destroying a potential future human life.

Who are you worried about trying to take such a poor creature to term? Armha?


Yes. (and no Armha, my query concerning the ignoring button was a general one.) There will no doubt be unanticipated consequences to these technologies we hope to develop. There will be individuals (and groups) whose ethical standards are frightening

No one will do that without others to support the effort and why would anyone?

To a great extent this debate over the *moment of inception* is a red herring IMHO unless we are willing to ignore a very important ingredient all those blastocysts still depend on Mr. Bioconservative.

Mom.


Of course you can raise that issue too.  ;))


Thank you. I think I will. First, by endorsing therapeutic cloning technologies we are turning embryos into a commodity. And as with any commodity a market will develop. How much will it take to get a woman from the third world to allow her eggs to be harvested? How much will it cost to have a woman from the third world bring something 'unnatural' (ooops, I said it [lol] ) to term?

How much longer before the requisite technological advances are made so that we can 'grow' a fetus to term outside of the uterus? I understand that an 'attack of the clones' scenario is ludicrous (and impractical) at this point in time. But in the future, when artificial development becomes possible, creating 'subhumans' for menial labor is not outside of the realm of possibility.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users