|
Pages: 1 [2] 3
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: The clones are coming (Read 11528 times)
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
You know, it feels like you're not reading the same conversation as I am. Now I might be wrong, but when I read you replies, it seems that you are arguing with someone who claims that the movie could be true and actually is realistic. And I haver't seen anyone like that in the thread so far. Are you just venting your frustations, or what?
For such strength they'd need huge muscles. They'd all pretty much have to look like gorillas, and thus couldn't possibly be as fast and agile as they are. Constantly hitting a bulletproof glass wall, without taking a scratch, is absurd (even if they had super-bones, which would make them even more clumsy). The point is, if such superhuman abilities were really possible/worth it, evolution would've come up with them. The human body is an outstanding machine already. Which is probably why i said something along the lines of "Increased strength and aggression would be quite possible, but not for extended periods of time like in the movie.Not to the degree portrayed in the movie of course but still." rather than "Oh yeah they'd totally be able to rip concrete to shreds and headbutt glass" You don't need gigantic pecs to become far more powerful and agressive than a normal human is. Flush the system with enough testosterone, adrenaline and other such things, and you will be very strong, and extremely agressive. Of course, you won't survive for years on end in that state, or tear holes in walls. Another huge problem is how fast it all happens after they get infected, as I mentioned with the hair. But the main problem is how unlikely it is for a virus to mutate into something that does such an outstanding job. Ebola is one of the faster viruses we know of, with a kill time of three or so days in extreme cases (the mean is somewhere aroudn ten thhough). I suppose the writers just figured their new virus would be much faster without taking into consideration the troubles you run into when producing large amounts of any microscopic creature quickly. Hell, it's even less likely than losing your dog-friend, being found by other immune humans and finding the cure for the virus, all in the same two days (after 1,000 days of nothing). Oh, sorry, that's God. I guess God made the virus mutate that way too, then...  The God references did seem quite tacked on for the sake of just being there. But i enjoyed the whole "something didn't tell you to come here, I did on the radio!" exchange. Oh, the tech is fine. I actually like that aspect of the series. It's all this mystical religious future-telling crap that drives me crazy.  So did you dislike Star Wars for it's mystical force right up to the introduction of midichlorians? If so, you and Will Smith are both very alone in different ways. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Sorry, I just like discussing realism.  I'm trying to argue that the movie is more than just somewhat senseless.
No worries. I've never reflected on it before, but I suppose the ability to suspend disbelief isn't something everyone has. Sure, I'll notice when a movie does something illogical, but it doesn't stop my enjoyment.
That I'll disagree with (the powerful bit)... Without weapons, a gorilla will finish off even the most drugged psychotic body-builder. They seemed to possess such strength in the film (and they're not even body-builders).
Lucky for my statement a normal human isn't a gorilla then, isn't it?  To clarify, a virus that somehow caused your system to be flushed with adrenaline, testosterone (and since we're moving in the sphere of extremely unlikely events, why not crystal meth) would make you very very strong and aggressive. During my time as a bartender, I've seen methheads and steroid junkies do some pretty incredible thing. You'd beat pretty much any human hands down. But as i said, that still doesn't mean you can head-butt bulletproof glass (or fight a gorilla). Also, you'd not stay alive for very long. A lot of that strength comes from not feeling any pain. It doesn't make your muscles invincible though. Someone with a disease like that would bust up a few people, push a few cars over (but not lift them, like a gorilla could) and break down a few doors. At that stage, not only would he have ripped a lot of muscles and broken a few bones, but his heart would be ready to give out and his liver and kidneys wouldn't bee too hot.
Yeah! Go Will.
Too bad he is supposedly a Scientologist, eh?
Star Wars is a hybrid. The Force is not sci-fi, it's fantasy. "Midichlorians" aren't supposed to be a scientific thing.
maybe you should imagine BG to be a hybrid too then? After all, they have strange dieties, weird powers and all the things that go with fantasy. Sure, the orks are prettier than usual, but you'll just have to live with that.
Moreover, the Force isn't entirely "religious": even if all you do is be aggressive, the mere fact you were born with many midichlorians will sometimes allow you to kick a behaving Jedi's ass.
Sorry, you thought you just didn't lie supernatural things. So magic is alright, al long as gods aren't involved? Fair enugh i suppose.
We're way off-topic.
Ther's not really much to discuss on-topic, but here goes.
If we manage to create clones (like the androsynth), i wonder if we'll actually leave them looking human. I think that'd be a uncomfortable reminder of their innate humanity. I'd think it was more likely that after the first successful clones were made and our control over DNA is good enough to give them desirable characteristics, we'd make them ugly. No ones going to feel sorry for a hideous pitiful monster that keeps slobbering and farting. oh, and make them much like stereotypical denizens of the internet. Really good at a few things, but horribly inept socially and with bad body odour. that ought to top them from ever banding together. they'll more likely be fighting over whether some movie was good or not.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 05:19:45 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
Discussions of human cloning always make me laugh, because nobody seems to realize that we've had human clones running around for decades. What's that? I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist? No, not quite.
I'm assuming everyone's familiar with in-vitro fertilization (IVF), the technology used to make so-called test-tube babies for folks who can't get pregnant on their own. IVF has been used to make human clones since its inception. Once the egg is fertilized in the lab, in order to increase the odds of a succesful pregnancy, doctors will split off multiple cells from the newly dividing progenitor. When this is done very early in the process (even before the blastocyst phase), the divided cells aren't differentiated enough to have specialized yet, and will develop into another embryo. This is typically done one or two dozen times, and several of these are returned to the mother's (or surrogate's) uterus for implantation, with the others typically frozen incase the couple wants to have another child in the future. The end result is that any children created using this method will be genetically identical, thus fulfilling the definition of clones.
I think that's where everyone is getting tripped up. The ONLY thing implied by calling an organism a clone, is that it is genetically identical to the organism it is being compared to. I'm guessing all of the weird implications of genetic engineering and other strangeness when speaking of clones, is a combination of people's ignorance of the scientific definition of the term, and the protrayal of clones in sci-fi and other popular media.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Discussions of human cloning always make me laugh, because nobody seems to realize that we've had human clones running around for decades. What's that? I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist? No, not quite.
I'm assuming everyone's familiar with in-vitro fertilization (IVF), the technology used to make so-called test-tube babies for folks who can't get pregnant on their own. IVF has been used to make human clones since its inception. Once the egg is fertilized in the lab, in order to increase the odds of a succesful pregnancy, doctors will split off multiple cells from the newly dividing progenitor. When this is done very early in the process (even before the blastocyst phase), the divided cells aren't differentiated enough to have specialized yet, and will develop into another embryo. This is typically done one or two dozen times, and several of these are returned to the mother's (or surrogate's) uterus for implantation, with the others typically frozen incase the couple wants to have another child in the future. The end result is that any children created using this method will be genetically identical, thus fulfilling the definition of clones.
I think that's where everyone is getting tripped up. The ONLY thing implied by calling an organism a clone, is that it is genetically identical to the organism it is being compared to. I'm guessing all of the weird implications of genetic engineering and other strangeness when speaking of clones, is a combination of people's ignorance of the scientific definition of the term, and the protrayal of clones in sci-fi and other popular media.
Discussions of human cloning always make me laugh, because nobody seems to realize that we've had human clones running around for millennia. What's that? I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist? No, not quite. I'm doing a literal interpretation? Oh yes.
I’m assuming everyone is familiar with sexual intercourse (SEX), the process used for production of so called babies by folks who can get pregnant on their own. Once the egg is fertilized inside the woman, it generally matures happily. However, sometimes during a successful pregnancy, the cells will split at a very early stage. When this happens early in the process (even before the blastocyst phase), the divided cells aren’t differentiated enough to have specialized yet, and will develop into another embryo. This typically happens only once, but can happen several times. The result of such an event is called a monozygote, but they are commonly known as “twins”, “triplets” and so forth. The end result is that any children created using this method will be genetically identical, thus fulfilling the definition of clones.
I think that's where everyone except me is getting tripped up. The ONLY thing implied by calling an organism a clone, is that it is genetically identical to the organism it is being compared to. It is in no way dependent on what process is used to achieve this clone, be it a naturally occuring or man-made process. I'm guessing all of the weird implications of genetic engineering or any other human interference and other strangeness when speaking of clones, is a combination of people's ignorance of the scientific definition of the term, and the portrayal of clones in sci-fi and other popular media such as this forum.
It's the religion-style prophecies/miracles that bug me. Some people might actually find them un-far-fetched. Undecided
So you don't have a problem with the show, but with what other people think. Seems unfair to rag on a tv-show just because you disagree with people on something that is portrayed in the show. Also, I know you're really gung-ho in your opposition to religion and it's brainwashing influences, but I very much doubt that anyone in BG's target audience is going to become religious from watching a show fileld with sexy killer robots.
Oh. Well, I don't see that happening in the real world. Tongue But we might one day create AI robots which lack human urges/emotions like curiosity, fulfillment, enjoyment, suffering, etc., and somehow give them the will to do what we ask, and general morals. That sounds more reasonable for slaves.
Nor do I. But we were supposed to discuss cloning and the future remember? Besides, with machines there's always the risk that they "connect to the mainframe" and "disappear into the cybernet" to plot our demise. Biologicals are stuck in their fleshy prisons. Also, if we engineer them without hand and feet (but with nerves for them) and only allow them to wear prostetics whilst working), they can't even hit us during their spare time.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 05:35:19 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
I suppose I should have expected the scathing Luki reply? 
Obviously identical twins (or more) are clones of each other, but that's a natural process. I mentioned IVF specifically because it's an artificial process, has been around for a relatively long while, and has been generating clones since well before people started to get scared and/or outraged about the prospect of "human clones" walking among us. It's something (at least as far as I'm concerned) that really sheds light on how silly the whole discussion on the ethics of "human cloning" actually is.
The point is that most people seem to think that "clone = superman" for some reason. If you wanted to debate the ethics of genetically engineering those clones, however, that's a topic worth some serious discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
I suppose I should have expected the scathing Luki reply?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. It wasn't meant to be scathing as much as funny though. No hard feelings I hope?
Obviously identical twins (or more) are clones of each other, but that's a natural process. I mentioned IVF specifically because it's an artificial process, has been around for a relatively long while, and has been generating clones since well before people started to get scared and/or outraged about the prospect of "human clones" walking among us. It's something (at least as far as I'm concerned) that really sheds light on how silly the whole discussion on the ethics of "human cloning" actually is.
Twins are human clones as well, at least technically. But I understand what you mean. Both twins and IVF clones are very interesting in another way though. They demonstrate that even if your genes are identical, you become different.
The point is that most people seem to think that "clone = superman" for some reason. If you wanted to debate the ethics of genetically engineering those clones, however, that's a topic worth some serious discussion.
I think that's mostly because when people think of clones, they imagine production facilities, rather than just cloning a regular egg and implanting it in a regular person. And if you have huge place where people roll out on a conveyor belt, surely you must have the ability to improve their genetics as well! Or so people think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
I suppose I should have expected the scathing Luki reply? Sorry, I just couldn't resist. It wasn't meant to be scathing as much as funny though. No hard feelings I hope?
Of course not. What's the point of getting your knickers in a twist over an internet debate?
Obviously identical twins (or more) are clones of each other, but that's a natural process. I mentioned IVF specifically because it's an artificial process, has been around for a relatively long while, and has been generating clones since well before people started to get scared and/or outraged about the prospect of "human clones" walking among us. It's something (at least as far as I'm concerned) that really sheds light on how silly the whole discussion on the ethics of "human cloning" actually is.
Twins are human clones as well, at least technically. But I understand what you mean. Both twins and IVF clones are very interesting in another way though. They demonstrate that even if your genes are identical, you become different.
Well, somewhat anyway. Some of the studies that have been done over the past few decades on identical twins show some very bizarre similarities among twins that grew up in completely different environments. But that's another topic for another day.
The point is that most people seem to think that "clone = superman" for some reason. If you wanted to debate the ethics of genetically engineering those clones, however, that's a topic worth some serious discussion.
I think that's mostly because when people think of clones, they imagine production facilities, rather than just cloning a regular egg and implanting it in a regular person. And if you have huge place where people roll out on a conveyor belt, surely you must have the ability to improve their genetics as well! Or so people think.
Another trapping of sci-fi. Don't people realize that the technology and knowledge of how to do this is well beyond our grasp? I'm fairly certain we still can't gestate a baby of any mammalian species without an actual surrogate mother to carry it. So, barring a species-wide mentality shift towards Tleilaxu (if you don't get the reference, please do yourself a favor and pick up the Dune series by Frank Herbert... or at least the first few, anyway), this idea of a massive clone factory is pretty farfetched.
Hence my point. I think 99% of peoples' aversion to the idea of cloning is bred from a lack of real understainding, and being indoctrinated with all kinds of sci-fi nonsense over the years... But then, I suppose the fear of things we don't understand is a historically very human trait.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3
|
|
|
|
|
