Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Julian-May-discuss] Artificial Wombs

Expand Messages
  • bob
    Hi Chris, I tend to side with you; anything that can alleviate human suffering has to be a good thing, but I do however have to err on the side of caution when
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

      Hi Chris,

      I tend to side with you; anything that can alleviate human suffering has to be a good thing, but I do however have to err on the side of caution when it comes to a what amounts to a technological evolutionary leap.

      Does the fact that the children you envision being born without cystic fibrosis make up for the fact they would be born with little or no familial heritage? The physical benefits may well be outweighed by the (granted unknown) psychological problems that a birth without a parent or family might create.

      The fear you describe of 'genetically superior' people must be preceded by fear for 'emotionally inferior' people, with geographical but no social heritage of their own.

      We would in effect be creating another stratum of society, that would be alienated not just by the means of their birth, or the undeniably superiority of their genetic makeup but by the fact that they would have no 'buy-in' to the very society that created them.

      I have no real problems with artificial wombs, or even genetically enhanced children - bye bye cancer, bye bye. I have real problems with the possibility that procreation can be removed in toto from the human experience and given over to a production process.

      Bob

       

       

       

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:49 PM
      Subject: Re: [Julian-May-discuss] Artificial Wombs

      Hi everyone.

      The human genome project recently managed to fully map the entire sequence
      of human DNA.  The problem now is that we don't have sufficient technology
      to use this knowledge to it's full advantage!  That situation will change
      soon enough and the problem we face is the public 'fear' of genetic
      manipulation.

      With films like GATTACA, the public have been made to be very afraid of the
      amazing potential this opens up for the treatment of many of the
      untreatable, lethal genetic disorders.

      Personally, I think the idea of artificial wombs which contain genetically
      'perfect' children (free from male pattern baldness right up to deletion of
      genes for cystic fibrosis and huntingtons) would be amazing!  People who
      can't conceive children naturally (especially gay couples) would be able to
      fulfill a basic human desire - to procreate!

      Unfortunately there are those people who wouldn't be able to cope with the
      fact that these people are 'genetically superior'.  What would be forgotten
      is that they would still be human and, therefore, no more or less likely to
      be 'perfect' than 'unaltered' people!

      Chris.





      >From: "bob" <pallol@...>
      >Reply-To: Julian-May-discuss@yahoogroups.com
      >To: <Julian-May-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: Re: [Julian-May-discuss] Artificial Wombs
      >Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:26:13 -0000
      >
      >Of course if we're going to really go in to the realms of sci-fi...
      >
      >With the prospect of human DNA getting pretty much mapped in total within
      >the next decade or two; it would be possible to colonise and exploit even
      >non-Earth like planets with a race of humans genetically altered, to say
      >breathe the rairified atmosphere of Mars, and raised in a gestation chamber
      >for this very purpose.
      >
      >Should superluminal travel (or the equivalent) ever become a reality then
      >colonisation with non-borns, such as old golden-breeches himself, may well
      >become the norm rather than those through conventional births.
      >
      >On an interesting - at least to me - couple of side issues
      >
      >It has already been determined that fertilisation can occur with genetic
      >material other than that of a male - If memory serves, two gay woman in the
      >states have volunteered to become the first non-male-conception parents,
      >but legalities and moral debate over the process continue -  with the
      >invention of artificial wombs does this then take procreation out of the
      >human experience and make the very act of intercourse anything other than a
      >very intimate and personal form of entertainment?
      >
      >Would a race of beings concieved and born without that very personal act be
      >regarded as less than human? Are human rights granted to those born of the
      >human race or to those born of the technology of the human race?
      >
      >Leda's point about the closeness of mother/child relationships is very
      >valid. Adopted children, regardless of how loving their upbringing, usually
      >have a burning desire to find their birth parents. How would that purely
      >natural and emotional process be handled with the knowledge that their
      >birth originated with a bank of genetic material a gene-splicer and a very
      >advanced nutrient chamber?
      >
      >Thoughts anyone...
      >
      >Bob
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >   ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: Leticia Anderson
      >   To: Julian-May-discuss@yahoogroups.com
      >   Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:59 PM
      >   Subject: Re: [Julian-May-discuss] Artificial Wombs
      >
      >
      >   Ian wrote:
      >   > Last I checked the world didn't have a shortage of fertile wombs.
      >   >
      >   > Wonder why people want to can plastic people? Must be some really
      >   > worthwhile purpose for children without parents.
      >   >
      >   > A new slave race anyone?
      >
      >
      >   I guess the official human application would be for women who can't
      >carry a
      >   child to term, they could have a child born still of their genes. I
      >guess it
      >   is surrogacy without the emotional involvement of the surrogate mother.
      >   However I would have misgivings about a child born of an artificial
      >womb.
      >   Surely they would have missed out by not been carried close to a mother.
      >   Even though I don't remember it I imagine it would have been very nice
      >to be
      >   in utero and have your mother sing to you, for example.
      >   I can think of two other reasons for it, one practical, the other
      >fanciful.
      >   The first one would be too breed super cows or super sheep or whatever,
      >   specially selected genes to produce the best possible strains of beef
      >cattle
      >   for example (or even clones if cloning turns out to work) and then bring
      >   thousands of them to birth at the same time in artificial cow wombs.
      >Meat
      >   for Africa! Of course at the moment it would be much more expensive to
      >   produce a cow this way than to breed it naturally, but who knows how
      >   accesible the technology may become in later years!
      >   The fanciful one is inspired by Jurassic Park. In Jurassic Park (the
      >book)
      >   the owner of the park sponsors or buys out companies which develop
      >products
      >   which may be useful in any way to his goals. E.g. he buys amber mines
      >and
      >   sponsors dinosaur digs in digs in cold places and he buys a company
      >which
      >   had developed an artificial egg case so he can hatch his dinosaurs out
      >of
      >   fake eggs.
      >   Perhaps if the idea of regenerating extinct species through their DNA
      >ever
      >   becomes possible, they could generate a mammoth out of a frozen carcass
      >and
      >   then bring it to term in a fake plastic womb.
      >
      >   Leda
      >
      >
      >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >               ADVERTISEMENT
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >   Julian-May-discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >




      _________________________________________________________________
      Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      Julian-May-discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • mischa1701
      Hey Folks, Well, I m with Chris too. Anything that can stop these terrible, terrible disorders and syndromes is righty-dokey in my book. As a parent we had
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 15, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Folks,

        Well, I'm with Chris too. Anything that can stop these terrible,
        terrible disorders and syndromes is righty-dokey in my book. As a
        parent we had nine months waiting for little Red to pop out so we
        could account for his toes (ten) and fingers (ten) hearing, sight and
        mind (all A-OK thank god) but what of those poor parents whe get bad
        scan results etc. etc. and then have to decide what to do. And there's
        no scan for Blindness and Deafness.

        As to the argument that these 'bottle-bred' kids're going to be
        parentless, I think that's a rather long way off at least
        (colonisation of other worlds and stuff - the non-born technology is a
        step nearer, but rocket science ain't exactly rocket science these
        days, is it?)
        These technologies will more likely be used as mentioned (in posts
        passim) for folks who can't carry to term for one reason or another,
        'cause let's face it, the world doesn't exactly need more kids, but
        rather less (I mean if orphanages can't foster off the kid's they do
        have, what purpose would batch after batch of decanted nippers serve?)

        Rightho,

        see you all later

        Mish
      • Leticia Anderson
        Good point ;-) What would we do with them at the moment? Of course the expense would be prohibitive for years and years to come before it would even be
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 17, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Good point ;-) What would we do with them at the moment?
          Of course the expense would be prohibitive for years and years to come
          before it would even be possible to think of producing zillions of the
          little darlings.
          Does raise some interesting questions though. I get the feeling JMs views
          (at least as they are shown in the Miliue series) would argue that the
          non-born technology could result in disassociated children. The only
          non-borns who really feature (good ole Aiken and the foster siblings of
          Dorothea) are either maladjusted or they just don't compare to their
          naturally conceived fellow humans. Can't think of a single example of one of
          the elite MPs being a nonborn, even though you have super 'heads' like the
          MacGregors donating their genes all over the place (and Remillards, largely
          through the agency of Paul's womanising!).
          The interesting thing though is that maybe some people would be better off
          without parents! I know it is fiction and also that it focuses on rather
          extraordinary examples of abnormal psychology, but a lot of the characters
          in JMs books are quite simply nutbars because of their parents....Denis,
          Steinie and Felice being examples where they have been hurt by their
          parents, Marc and Amerie's issues have a lot to do with the way they
          perceived their parents and their relationship with them (accurate or not).
          Most of the Remillard Dynasty had major psychological problems associated
          with the mental interference of Fury....

          Leda

          PS Little Red? Is your child called Red?
        • Ian J Greely
          Interestingly enough the first commercial exploit appears to be to help the death challenged pet-owner to duplicate their beloved pet. Which is what the
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 18, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Interestingly enough the first commercial exploit appears to be to
            help the death challenged pet-owner to "duplicate" their beloved pet.
            Which is what the outfit who recently cloned a kitten are set up to
            do.

            Kind of sick and sad if you ask me. Might as well have the damned
            thing stuffed! (and the owner too come to think of it)

            regards,
            Ian
            On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:21:34 +1100, you wrote:

            >Good point ;-) What would we do with them at the moment?
            >Of course the expense would be prohibitive for years and years to come
            >before it would even be possible to think of producing zillions of the
            >little darlings.
            >Does raise some interesting questions though. I get the feeling JMs views
            >(at least as they are shown in the Miliue series) would argue that the
            >non-born technology could result in disassociated children. The only
            >non-borns who really feature (good ole Aiken and the foster siblings of
            >Dorothea) are either maladjusted or they just don't compare to their
            >naturally conceived fellow humans. Can't think of a single example of one of
            >the elite MPs being a nonborn, even though you have super 'heads' like the
            >MacGregors donating their genes all over the place (and Remillards, largely
            >through the agency of Paul's womanising!).
            >The interesting thing though is that maybe some people would be better off
            >without parents! I know it is fiction and also that it focuses on rather
            >extraordinary examples of abnormal psychology, but a lot of the characters
            >in JMs books are quite simply nutbars because of their parents....Denis,
            >Steinie and Felice being examples where they have been hurt by their
            >parents, Marc and Amerie's issues have a lot to do with the way they
            >perceived their parents and their relationship with them (accurate or not).
            >Most of the Remillard Dynasty had major psychological problems associated
            >with the mental interference of Fury....
            >
            >Leda
            >
            >PS Little Red? Is your child called Red?
            >
            >
            >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            >Julian-May-discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          • Leticia Anderson
            ... Wow I didn t think of that! Have to say my mind is sadly intrigued by that use. My dog who is now thirteen is very close to expiring and I have been
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 18, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > Interestingly enough the first commercial exploit appears to be to
              > help the death challenged pet-owner to "duplicate" their beloved pet.
              > Which is what the outfit who recently cloned a kitten are set up to
              > do.
              >
              > Kind of sick and sad if you ask me. Might as well have the damned
              > thing stuffed! (and the owner too come to think of it)

              Wow I didn't think of that! Have to say my mind is sadly intrigued by that
              use. My dog who is now thirteen is very close to expiring and I have been
              thinking for a long time that it would be difficult to ever find another dog
              to replace her. I met a dog a few weeks ago which was essentially the same
              breeding as her (both kelpie x german gun dog) and realised that all of
              characteristics I loved in her were present in this dog too. It is a rather
              unusual cross though so it would be difficult to find another dog of similar
              breeding. If I cloned her however it would be darn easy really.
              There is that horrible instinct in me to consider such an option, before
              another part of my brain catches up and says 'Hey, don't be stupid! It won't
              be her anyway, you know that, plus it is really really morbid!'.
              It has made me think for the first time however that I can understand a
              little more though why some people could want to clone their children when
              they die.

              Leda
            • Ian J Greely
              The instinct to rebel against death would seem to be in all of us. However, this is a cheap solution. The clone is not the original. I was fascinated to find
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 18, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                The instinct to rebel against death would seem to be in all of us.
                However, this is a cheap solution. The clone is not the original. I
                was fascinated to find that the "cloned" kitten did not have identical
                patterning upon it's coat as did the original.

                Not even a cheap facsimile.

                It seems to me to be a great dishonour upon individuality to go down
                this road.

                Having lost people, the idea that they could be "replaced" without
                being the person is crass. Without the memories, experiences and soul
                of the original they are as likely to be important as any other
                person. Which is to say that there is no advantage to the "trick" only
                a sad failure to live up to the price of life.

                On people who are infertile bilking the genetics. Think about the
                effect upon the viability of the _species_. If technology becomes
                _necessary_ to procreation then it is not a triumph but a curse.

                To put the needs of _individuals_ before the viability of the
                species. Well, it's the reverse of the eugenics of the 40's and 50's.

                Avoid the extremes.

                regards,
                Ian



                On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:46:06 +1100, you wrote:

                >Wow I didn't think of that! Have to say my mind is sadly intrigued by that
                >use. My dog who is now thirteen is very close to expiring and I have been
                >thinking for a long time that it would be difficult to ever find another dog
                >to replace her. I met a dog a few weeks ago which was essentially the same
                >breeding as her (both kelpie x german gun dog) and realised that all of
                >characteristics I loved in her were present in this dog too. It is a rather
                >unusual cross though so it would be difficult to find another dog of similar
                >breeding. If I cloned her however it would be darn easy really.
                >There is that horrible instinct in me to consider such an option, before
                >another part of my brain catches up and says 'Hey, don't be stupid! It won't
                >be her anyway, you know that, plus it is really really morbid!'.
                >It has made me think for the first time however that I can understand a
                >little more though why some people could want to clone their children when
                >they die.
                >
                >Leda
                >
                >
                >
                >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                >Julian-May-discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • Leticia Anderson
                For years I have been stuck on the idea of clones vs identical twins. Identical twins should be no more or less identical than clones. Yet even identical
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 18, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  For years I have been stuck on the idea of clones vs identical twins.
                  Identical twins should be no more or less identical than clones. Yet even
                  identical twins, with no portion of their genetic makeup different to each
                  other, have different fingerprints.
                  Different fingerprints indicates some bizarre process of differentiation not
                  marked in the genetic record. The different conditions in different parts of
                  the womb can have a marked affect on the development of twins yet this is a
                  regular alteration of the very thing which marks each one of us as unique,
                  despite differing environmental influences or the identical genetic
                  heritage.
                  If cloned kittens have differing patterns in their fur, a feline fingerprint
                  equivalent, then cloned humans would, like identical twins, have different
                  fingerprints. I had considered in the past what the implications would be if
                  humans were cloned and were found to have identical fingerprints. That would
                  imply something inhuman almost, or incomplete. Yet I feel sure now that the
                  implication of this kitten's differing markings would be that any clone's
                  fingerprints would differ. Even were the clones to be bought to term in
                  identical, controlled artificial wombs.
                  I have always been told the reason for this difference between fingerprints
                  in people of identical genetic heritage was environmental differences in the
                  womb. However if that could be controlled, there must be another explanation
                  for this differentiation between all living beings. Does anyone else know of
                  another reason for differing fingerprints?

                  Leda

                  on 19/2/02 10:55 AM, Ian J Greely at ian@... wrote:

                  > The instinct to rebel against death would seem to be in all of us.
                  > However, this is a cheap solution. The clone is not the original. I
                  > was fascinated to find that the "cloned" kitten did not have identical
                  > patterning upon it's coat as did the original.
                  >
                  > Not even a cheap facsimile.
                  >
                  > It seems to me to be a great dishonour upon individuality to go down
                  > this road.
                  >
                  > Having lost people, the idea that they could be "replaced" without
                  > being the person is crass. Without the memories, experiences and soul
                  > of the original they are as likely to be important as any other
                  > person. Which is to say that there is no advantage to the "trick" only
                  > a sad failure to live up to the price of life.
                  >
                  > On people who are infertile bilking the genetics. Think about the
                  > effect upon the viability of the _species_. If technology becomes
                  > _necessary_ to procreation then it is not a triumph but a curse.
                  >
                  > To put the needs of _individuals_ before the viability of the
                  > species. Well, it's the reverse of the eugenics of the 40's and 50's.
                  >
                  > Avoid the extremes.
                  >
                  > regards,
                  > Ian
                • mischa1701
                  ... Yes, my Son is called Red (4 years old on March 1st) and his full name is Redvers Kirk Welsh. Bet no-one can guess where his middle name comes from (clue:
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 21, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Julian-May-discuss@y..., Leticia Anderson <leticia@r...> wrote:

                    > PS Little Red? Is your child called Red?

                    Yes, my Son is called Red (4 years old on March 1st) and his full name
                    is Redvers Kirk Welsh. Bet no-one can guess where his middle name
                    comes from (clue: my yahoogroups username)

                    Now re: Artificial Wombs and cloned Cats & Doggies

                    I know what you mean about being tempted: If god forbid anything
                    happened to Red, and we were offered the chance of cloning him,
                    knowing that the new kid would look like him, but not BE him (Duncan
                    Idaho anyone?) Morbid as it sounds, I'd probably go for it. Ugh! I
                    know, but imagine being in that situation.


                    Rightho,

                    cheers folks

                    Mish
                    Ps: interesting stuff about clones/twins not having same fingerprints-
                    didn't know that.
                  • bob
                    Apologies to the group for being off topic but I couldn t resist as the dune series is another of my faves. Idaho is a Ghola not a clone, with all the memories
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 21, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Apologies to the group for being off topic but I couldn't resist as the dune series is another of my faves.
                       
                      Idaho is a Ghola not a clone, with all the memories and experiences of all his past selves (with the exception of those derived from those bodies which couldn't be retrieved, Leto II being as lethal as he was) so really was the same person, just with a very uncenventional longevity.
                       
                      Mind you I love the idea of this university being the start of the Teilaxu tanks, good call Mischa. *grin*
                       
                      Back on topic, if these artificial wombs were used with cloning technology, how would you feel about having a clone grown of yourself?
                       
                      I'm thinking predominately of a story I read once about a cloning factory where bodies were grown without brains to be harvested for replacement organs as the donors grew old or infirm. It wouldn't be as effective as the regen-tanks that the Milieu uses, but even so it could effectively be used to extend life.
                       
                      Would that process reduce humanity to little more than a machine or would it be a boon to society extending the lives of our greatest thinkers?
                       
                      Thoughts?
                       
                      Bob
                       
                       
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 10:48 AM
                      Subject: [Julian-May-discuss] Re: Artificial Wombs

                      --- In Julian-May-discuss@y..., Leticia Anderson <leticia@r...> wrote:

                      > PS Little Red? Is your child called Red?

                      Yes, my Son is called Red (4 years old on March 1st) and his full name
                      is Redvers Kirk Welsh. Bet no-one can guess where his middle name
                      comes from (clue: my yahoogroups username)

                      Now re: Artificial Wombs and cloned Cats & Doggies

                      I know what you mean about being tempted: If god forbid anything
                      happened to Red, and we were offered the chance of cloning him,
                      knowing that the new kid would look like him, but not BE him (Duncan
                      Idaho anyone?) Morbid as it sounds, I'd probably go for it. Ugh! I
                      know, but imagine being in that situation.


                      Rightho,

                      cheers folks

                      Mish
                      Ps: interesting stuff about clones/twins not having same fingerprints-
                      didn't know that.



                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      Julian-May-discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.