Should we artificially create human life?
 

As Chris Rock says, just because you CAN do something, it doesn't always make it a good idea. I've wondered a lot about that when it comes to artificially creating human life. For me, this ranges all the way from cloning to medically induced multiple births. Is it ethical? Is it ecologically sound? Is it medically safe?

I fully understand the gravity of this question, and I'm not trying to present this topic in any way that's flippant.

I'm not a fan of the idea of cloning humans in their entirety. I see it as a
major threat to the diversity of the already-weak human genepool.

I have no objection to cloned tissue culture.

Absolutely not.

Already-weak human genepool? In what way?

If you're referring to the lethal and sub-lethal genetic conditions that we can now manage until the sufferer is actually able to reproduce, thus perpetuating the genetic insults, this is actually a shining example of Darwinism in action. The reliance of humans on technology for their simple existence is an example of a species moving with a vengeance into a particular unoccupied niche.

Cloning simply will further entrench our need for technology, ensuring that we will fight for our survival by becoming more and more technocratic. We've been interfering with the reproductive system for centuries (ancient Egyptians used birth control). Why stop now? It's evolution in action.

And no, I don't think we should be cloning humans. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

But there is no Darwin these days.

I'm not a genius so I hope this is sarcasm. Aside from the "That's my mother!" aspect of having someone who carries a genetic defect on to the next generation, I'm not a big fan of a world where everybody has the right to reproduce at will without the least bit of regulation. Call it whatever you want; I figure we're supposed to be improving human lives as a whole instead of perpetuating suffering and expenses for purely sentimental reasons.

To me it seems so very odd that we regulate the shit out of everything else.

Maybe I've read one too many "end of humanity via the unintended side effects of science meant to improve our lives", but there seems to be some logic in that scenario. Especially as it relates to cloning.

Any procedure would have potential flaws even the first time it was used and as homosapiens are complex beings, negative outcomes, including potentially lethal and communicable mutations of diseases in the cloned DNA are possible. How could scientists ever be completely sure to weed out genetic predisposition, for example, to cancer or diabetes?

Further, miscarriages occur naturally all the time because something wasn't right with the growing embryo, but in the artificial womb of a lab, is that possible or will a mutation just continue to develop?

That said, there is also question of morality. Creating a human life is a huge responsibility. What if the negative outcome results in the suffering of the cloned being? Who's responsible for its upbringing and nurturing? Are they to be adopted and live a normal life or to live with the scientists who cloned them?

Ethics and guidelines would have to be in place first and then, as I already noted, nature is unpredictable and sometimes dangerous.

Absolutely. I've been waiting to use this.

Not on a large scale. The are enough orphans for people who want a child and can't conceive one.

How about we kill off some of the people who are already on this planet before we start getting into the discussion of creating "artificial" human life by which we have no means to care for.

There's no benefit to the world at large for this to even come to fruition, and I doubt it will, what with the rungs of hoops such an idea would perpetuate inside the mind of a "real" human life form, and how it would be handled among world politicians.

Also, "colonize the sea", I keep saying, but does anyone listen? No.
Instead, we are stuck here, still having debates about whether or not Lex Luthor's idea about propagating an army of himself and his nemesis could ever be a good idea on this plane of reality.

What about a scenario where a person who can't/didn't reproduce is cloned to preserve their genetic material so that it isn't lost from the gene pool? Or bringing back an allele that has been lost and that has potential to be useful?

I'm not comfortable with assertions that cloning for reproduction is always necessarily a bad thing; it's reminiscent of the medieval European prohibition on dissecting human cadavers.

I believe that this whole business of fertility treatments, in-vitro fertilization, and embryo transfer is just plain weird and too sci-fi for my tastes. I do not support fertility treatments to ensure that a woman has children, and I believe if your body was not biologically capable to bear children, then there is likely a good reason for it.

But I wonder about my opinion, because, I’m not a woman. And I imagine a woman who desires to have children, but can’t through natural means, is crushed by being told “No” to what could be her only real chance at having a child. That must hurt in some way I could never understand.

But then again, some women act out of desperation, selfishness and greed. They desire something that perhaps isn’t meant for them, and rather than truly considering the consequences and the possibilities, they fall in love with the idea itself. It moves from being a desire to an obsession, which makes them lose sight of priorities and what’s right.

Since we only have each other to breed with, (meaning we Earthlings), how long before we're a bunch of inbred freaks?

The phrase, "It's a small world after all." keeps running through my mind.

How do people on smallish islands keep from inbreeding?

The reason I bring this up, is I keep seeing people (actors) from different parts of the world that look quite a bit alike.

I can't conceive of a reason to fuck with what comes (or doesn't) naturally.

Humans have a tendency towards too much artificiality as it stands.

So? I know of no less than five different members of my own extended family that look nearly identical to some rappers, actors, and in one instance, a very tall, buxom (perfect!) European pornstar.

There's also very little to worry about in-breeding in this very populus, nearly seven-billion-strong, little, bursting-to-the-seams, world of ours. Mating with one's own family has little to no effect on the health of the baby once you get past two rungs of separation from familial ties. In essence, that means ... well, I'm not going to explain exactly how that would work, but just know that if you somehow meet a relative of yours (attractive, too!) in Singapore due to one of your grandparents' visit over there long ago, then there will be little to worry about if you should decide to consumate this fateful meeting.

I'm not sure. Im okay with in-vitro. Want to have genetic children taht bad, then you go through in-vitro and do your thing. Im not okay with cloning, that freaks me out. But what about same-sex children? I'm kind of suprised nobody has brought hits up yet actually.

Recently there's been development into creating life from same sex partners. Turning an egg into a spem to fertilize another egg, and a sperm into an egg to be fertilized by another sperm, thus making it so that Jill and Leanne, and John and Adam can have babies without the opossite sex. So far they're making progress with the female end, it's easier to make a sperm out of an egg than an egg out of a sperm. And they're successfuly bread mice babies from 2 female "mommy" mice. BUT the only thing there is that they can only procude female offspring. They havn't yet, as far as I know. Made a male son from two genetic moms. And I'm not sure if they've made any other advancements with the male-male reproductive side.

I'll find links and info and come back, but what do you guys think about all that?

Not a fan of human cloning. Too many things to go wrong imo.

Yes. I support human cloning. We need more food.

But seriously, no. I like the idea of 7 billion different creatures walking the earth. It's also not medically safe. There have been phenomenal leaps in the past decade alone to understanding genes and their effects on life but still the knowledge present is too little to be harnessed.

C'mon man, things in this world happen for absolutely no reason at all. Tragic or otherwise.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------

Freaky. I like it!! It completely blows away conventions and ushers in a new development in possibilities! Just think, when someone says "you can't have children, you need a man AND a woman to do it!" You can reply with "thats what they said about flying a century ago!"

Some people believe that human beings are artificially created.
As if our DNA is the product of some alien technology.
So it wouldn't be unnatural to manipulate the already artificial components that comprise our humanity.

Thanks, Jet. That actually allayed some of my concerns. :)

Here are some cool links for info on the same-sex reproduction stuff I was talking about earlier:

New Scientist: Same-Sex Reproduction
Europundit: Same sex reproduction
http://www.chromosomechronicles.com/...e-sex-couples/

The last link has been finicky for me. It worked then it didn't then it worked.. If it's being a douche, try again later.

Me thinks
 

we create enough fools naturally without the test tubes and lab magic..

My simple answer is no.

I meant the lack of genetic diversity in the human genome.

It is not possible through to create a human male using only the genetic information contained within human females. To get a human male one parent must have a Y chromosome and females don't have one (If they did, they would be genetically male).

"My mother was a test-tube, my father was a knife."
-Marjorie "Friday" Baldwin, Friday, Robert A. Heinlein

My principal objections to the artificial creation of Human life are much the same as Heinlein expressed in the above-mentioned work.

In the world of "Friday," such work is long completed. Human beings, known as "Artificial Persons" or "APs" in popular slang, are grown in laboratories and raised in creche-style group homes, trained to be essentially social slaves: doing the jobs that nobody else wants. APs are the prostitutes, high-risk combat operatives, the drudges and the pariahs of this world. Conveniently, most of the world's major religions mostly do not assign APs a soul or moral free agency, and so they are subject not only to legal discrimination of every kind, but also to social ostracism, abuse, and murder. The title character is herself an AP, and the book deals in great depth with the problems such a system creates. For Friday herself, the problems are legion:

1: How to find love in a society which believes that APs are incapable of love.
2: How to find/keep a job in a society in which APs are typically prevented from entering most occupations.
3: How to maintain relationships with "normal" humans in a society in which a person's status as an AP automatically consigns them to the lowest social roles and in which such status is regarded as physically, spiritually, and mentally "tainted."
4: How to interface with the world at large, and humans in general, when unsure if she even -is- human, despite the assurance of multiple very intelligent people who mean a great deal to her that she is "as human as Mother Eve." Friday's search for her own humanity, both experienced for herself and seen reflected in the eyes of others, is a marvelous thing to read. But I can only imagine the horror such emotions could inflict upon someone perhaps less well-prepared for emotional trauma than a genetically-engineered superspy with an affection for sarcasm and cats.

As much of a crush as I had on Friday when I was younger, I don't wish to see the genetic and eugenic horrorshow required to bring her into being.

I have a great deal of trouble imagining a world in which these would not be huge problems. Additionally, not being "real" humans, "APs" could easily end up a new slave class, just as Heinlein describes; especially if the technology is pioneered by a repressive State. North Korea's infamous "Total Control Zone" springs to mind as the kind of place where APs are most likely to show up first, if they haven't already. Likewise, this carries additional geneto-ethical risks: what's to stop North Korea or some equally-demented State from creating genetically pre-determined classes of people? I hate to get all Huxley on this debate, but once that genie is out of the bottle there's no telling who's wishes it'll grant.

I vote no.

On the other hand: marrying hot people from other cultures and other parts of the world? Damned fine idea. Genetic diversity = good.

Y'mean like right now? No, I'm making dinner.

Put my vote in the "yes" column. There are always going to be complex and dividing moral questions surrounding the forward march of scientific discovery, but there are times when emotional, perhaps illogical arguments find their way in along with the legitimate arguments and then you've got a big mess. There was once a time when transplants were considered immoral because of the assumed sanctity of the human body. The problem with that argument is once I'm dead I won't exactly care what happens to my heart or lungs or kidneys. Or my brain, my delicious, delicious brain.

For those 3 people on TFP still unaware, I was born with a life-threatening deformity of the cardiovascular system requiring dangerous heart surgery. Had the deformity not been discovered, it's very likely that I would have dropped dead years ago, saving you all from years of flame-baiting and quasi-intelligent posts. (Yeah, a little self-deprecating humor to draw them in, now get to the point!) Had the technology to artificially alter my development been around in the early 80s, I might have been born in perfect health. The cost for that cure would have been that my birth would have been to some degree artificial. If you're still with me, what's the difference between changing a few thousand genes to make me a healthy baby and finishing the job and artificially making all the genes? So long as the person that's born is allotted the same rights and freedoms as every other human being, what's the harm?

I'm down.

I absolutely agree! My objection is centred on my concern that people like your hypothetical genetically-cured self, or the fictional Miss Baldwin, or anyone in between, would -not- be accorded those same Rights. I should hate to see you, or her, or they, turned into a helot class.

There's no way originalists like Thomas, Scalia, and Alito would give NeoSapiens Constitutional protection.

why not- we as a species are pretty well incapable of not fucking around with about anything we could possibly do, so why the hell not.... I generally believe in a full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes approach for most everything science related, cause the only way we seem to learn is the hard way, so slowing down only draws out the process and hurts more in the long run......

It's a Brave, Brave, Brave New World...

Human gene pool lacks diversity? I know Caucasians are sparse but never thought any other race has this issue.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...rreagl/743.jpg

Caucasians are quite the opposite of sparse. They are definitely the most badass guard dog anywhere.

Re: human cloning, I'm having a hard time thinking about what the point would be.

Can anyone give me some good, compelling reasons FOR cloning that don't have to do with the vanity of carrying on one's bloodline for posterity?

In Praise of Science and Technology

As with a baby, the value is in the potential to be useful, not it's immediate usefulness.

This is a great point. The fact that it "can be done" is entirely essential for situations where it "must be done."

However, we must have faith in ourselves with such matters. After all, splitting the atom has led to many practical and lifesaving uses. At the same time, it has led to the wholesale whisking away of life as well.

So in a sense, my own position is not about whether we should do it or not, but more about whether we should know how to do it and what we can learn from it and what it can and should do for us.

Bioethics is something we as a global community should be focusing on, as we are hitting a great stride with regard to technological change.

The work associated with cloning is what's important; not just mapping, but exploring what genes do and how different genes translate to different outcomes. Cloning can be copying favorable traits and passing them selectively along to the next, meaning we can isolate and remove genes associated with weaknesses or illness and select genes associated with good health, long life, and intelligence. I see the research as being highly practical, especially as someone born with a malformation.