Chefelf.com Night Life: Obiwank Wants Clones... - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

Obiwank Wants Clones... just lost all respect for Ewan Mcgregor

#1 User is offline   Hannibal Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 1,013
  • Joined: 29-October 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 16 March 2005 - 04:38 PM

QUOTE
Ewan McGregor: 'Cloning makes perfect sense'

World Entertainment News Network
Posted March 11 2005


  E-mail story  Print story
Scottish actor Ewan McGregor has become inspired by his new sci-fi movie about human clones - and loves the idea of cloning himself for "spare parts"

McGregor appears with actress Scarlett Johanssen in The Island, which is due for release later this year.

The Moulin Rouge star, 33, says, "I like the story, the exploration of human cloning and the idea of people having clones made of themselves essentially for spare parts.

"If they need any organs then they can take it from their clone. In a way, it makes perfect sense."


So can I cut off your balls Ewan? Any time I want? You can just grow new ones...
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities also has the power to make you commit atrocities."
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)


Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
0

#2 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 16 March 2005 - 06:19 PM

I actually support the idea to an extent.

a child was born without a cerebral cortex in 1993/4 and it got me thinking. the medula oblongata takes care of all the systems...
just keep a carbon copy of yourself in the cupboard...

loose an arm, or if your apendiz explodes, or you get bowel cancer, or loose an eye, etc.

no one would have to wait in line for a new kidney, heart, liver, etc.

but i suppose you'd have to be a jerk to want that kind of thing tongue.gif
0

#3 User is offline   Just another wretched fan Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 31-January 05
  • Location:Boston or Syracuse
  • Country:United States

Posted 16 March 2005 - 08:33 PM

yeah this is totally the wrong forum for this,

but if you ask me, killing a clone to take spare parts totally negates the good done by saving the original life. just as, if you ask me, killing a developing human to take stem cells. There is no net gain.

I heard that there was research saying that adult stem cells may be more useful that previously thought.

You don't really need a clone for that, just impant your ear stem cells on a rat's back and watch them grow. No human lives lost.
0

#4 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 16 March 2005 - 10:14 PM

But as Chefelf pointed out, there's no debate over the morality of cloning in the film.

Nobody seems to care to question the ethics of clones. It's as if clones are as everyday as spice miners or gundarks.

So why would I believe that this is the first war to be named for the use of a clone army?
And aren't they really Clone Battles of the Separatist war?

(Or was it the greedy trade federation war? It's so complicated I can't keep up.)
0

#5 User is offline   CowboyCurtis Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 11-February 04
  • Location:Minnesooota
  • Interests:I lose interest in more things each and every day as things grow more and more mediocre and substandard...
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 March 2005 - 12:55 AM

yes, excellent points. Cloning ought to be an issue other than just, "How many should we make?"

Oooh, the wasted opportunities....
Flying Ferret

Battle for the Galaxy--read the "other Star Wars"

All I know is I haven't seen the real prequels yet.
0

#6 User is offline   Helena Icon

  • Basher Extraordinaire
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,327
  • Joined: 01-June 04
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Current age: 22<br /><br />Current occupation: Auditor<br /><br />Interests: Reading, computer games, music, and Star Wars (obviously).<br /><br />Talents: Can't act, can't dance, can sing a little.<br /><br />Loves: Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' series.<br /><br />Hates: Harry Potter. Surely I can't be the only one?
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:20 AM

People who talk about cloning themselves for 'spare parts' are completely misunderstanding how cloning works. There are ethical issues around cloning, but this particular idea is pure fantasy. Let me try and explain:

In real life, a clone isn't just a carbon copy of its 'parent'; it's genetically identical, but develops in the womb and then grows up in the normal way. So for instance, if someone made a clone of me today, she would be twenty-one years younger than me when she was born and would therefore never actually look like me. A human clone would not be a mindless automaton, but a normal individual, and killing them for spare parts would be just as much murder as if you killed the original person. Look at it this way: identical twins are clones of each other, but no one would ever deny that they are separate individuals or claim that one should be forced to donate organs to the other.

In science fiction, however, all this goes out the window. You could always imagine that in a society like the one in SW, there really is a way of producing clones that are basically 'photocopies' of the original person, and have no minds of their own (the details of how it's done could be skipped over). And yes, this would certainly be ethically suspect - which is why I always thought it should be the villains who produce the clone army, rather than the Jedi.
QUOTE
The sandpeople had women and children. We know this because Anakin killed them how could he tell? The children might be smaller but I never saw a sandperson with breasts. Did they hike their skirts and show him some leg or something?

QUOTE
Also, I can see the point of wanting to kidnap a human and use her as a slave, but they didn't. They tied her to a flimsy easel for a month. It's assumed they had to feed and give her water. What for? Was she purely ornamental? I can understand them wanting the droids, you can sell those for a lot of money, but a chick who's only skills are finding non-existand mushrooms and getting randomly pregnant, you're not going to get much.

- J m HofMarN on the Sand People
0

#7 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 06:51 PM

this is why i came up with organ trees...

why clone humans. why not just create flesh-mass upon which organs can be grown and harvested like plants.

if a mouse can carry an ear, (which i don't exactly consider cricket) why not a circulated, oxgenated mass of fleash...

the human body can exist without a cerebral cortex, therefore no life would be created. just shells. but alittle more study into biomanipulative-genetic-reconfiguration could quite concievable yield a victimless and virtually limmitless supply of 'spare parts'

quite frankly the objection would be not so much a moral one but a metaphysically philosophical one.

which to be honest is redundant.
who can defend their belief on this?
the atheists don't have a right to beleive in soul, and the christians are so rarely harmonious with their own doctrine that are not qualified to object. i'll have to ask some budhist what they think... but we'll see!
0

#8 User is offline   Just another wretched fan Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 31-January 05
  • Location:Boston or Syracuse
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:05 PM

I was originally wanted to write a nice reply and then i realized this was all i needed to do:

replies:

despondant - "yes"

curtis - "yes, don't rub it in, it stings"

helena - "yes, exactly"

barend - "depends on the christian" and "depends on if there is a human life involved or a souless meat bag, really."
0

#9 User is offline   Hannibal Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 1,013
  • Joined: 29-October 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:02 PM

The Buddhist argument against Cloning:


Venerable Master Hsuan Hua, not one of the cult leaders from Tibet, has spoken out against cloning, genetic engineering, spare parts, etc.

Basically one argument is this: Buddhists believe in reincarnation, in this reincarnation after you die you will (your soul, energy, being) you will enter the mother of your birth, in other words, you will choose your next mother.
If there is no mother, bad things will happen, like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters.

There is a multitude of other reasons, but this is just one.

"For instance, some unethical scientists now are busy inventing miraculous monsters. You say it's human? It’s not really human. You say it's an animal? It’s not exactly an animal either. Since they graft human genes onto animal bodies and alter human genes with animals strains, this mutual genetic modification produces a freakish, mutant, hybrid that resembles neither parent.

Anything taken to the ultimate point, transforms into its opposite. Now people can be born with horns, or elephant-like trunks. In my opinion, a human born with a nose like a pachyderm is more a goblin than a person. These goblins and freaks are all within the realm of possibility today. "

--Venerable Master Hsuan Hua

"I would like to mention now an alternate spiritual model from the Buddhist tradition, one whose ethics are karma-based. The fundamental principle of this model is ahimsa, "non-harming," respect for the intrinsic value of all sentient beings, not just human life. This model, moreover, respects sentient beings not merely for their usefulness to us as tools or means to ends. Out of this notion of respect for life comes the notion of selfless compassion as a guiding principle in our actions. So in terms of genetic engineering, this would exclude any instrumental use of human or nonhuman sentient life. A second principle of this viewpoint is transcendence, which is very difficult to talk about in scientific terms, but which, from a spiritual viewpoint, is not only a potential for humans, but for all sentient beings. All sentient beings have the potential to develop spiritual wisdom and liberation. This potential, according to Buddhism, is meaningless in most scientific models. The third principle of this spiritual viewpoint is that the cosmos is an open system, in contrast to the closed system of most scientific research. Built into the open-system model is the idea that we cannot know through scientific methodology the full extent of the possible effects of genetic alterations on living creatures. We cannot be certain of the ultimate effects of any genetic changes we make. A fourth principle is the non-Cartesian view of the relationship between the physical and the spiritual. The condition of our bodies and nervous system affects our minds and spirits, and vice-versa. This is why karma-based ethics insists on purity of both minds and spirits, and vice-versa. This leaves open the possibility, therefore, that genetic engineering might adversely influence the potential of sentient beings to achieve transcendence. And there is no scientific experiment we can perform to find out one way or another. "

What about humans, themselves? A few years ago Granada Biosciences of Texas applied to the European Patent Office for a patent on a so-called “pharm-woman,” the idea being to genetically engineer human females so that their breast milk would contain specialized pharmaceuticals. Work is also ongoing to use genetic engineering to grow human breasts in the laboratory. Not only would they be used for breast replacement needed due to cancer surgery, but could easily foster a vigorous commercial demand by women in search of the “perfect” breasts. Geneticist Jonathan Slack of England’s Bath University has recently proposed genetically engineering headless humans to be used for body parts. Some prominent geneticists, such as Lewis Wolpert, Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine at University College London, have supported his idea.



When considering the potential of genetic engineering for curing illness, we should remember that, according to Buddhist teachings, we get sick for one of two main reasons. Our “four elements” may become imbalanced, which may be roughly interpreted in modern terms as “we are run-down and our resistance to pathogens is low.” And sickness or a shortened lifespan may in some instances be karmic retribution for the taking of life. As Buddhists, we should be especially sensitive to geneticists’ degradation of what it means to be a human being. Do we want a “cure” at any price? We may want to ask ourselves whether the karma from the harming of life involved in the development and application of the gene therapy is going to cause us even heavier karmic problems down the road. Or how are transgenic animal body parts in our bodies going to affect the human quality of our everyday awareness?

Genetic engineering can affect the whole of nature, as well. In Buddhist terms, “nature” refers to the patterns of causes and conditions that reflect the karma of sentient beings. In terms of respect for life, which is the foundation of all Buddhist practice, nature can also be understood as the sum total of ecosystems that support life; it is the essential condition for preserving living beings from harm. Humans, animals, and other sentient beings are dependent upon a wholesome environment for a healthy life. Harming that environment causes those sentient beings to suffer, and, ultimately, to die prematurely. Harming life energy itself, even on the level of microorganisms, can have deleterious effects on more complex organisms because of the interconnectedness of all life.

Furthermore, nature as wilderness provides an effective place for meditation, one where rapid progress can be made. In self-cultivation, harmony with nature involves the ability to find a place for practice where the natural energy is auspicious. Nature acts as a mirror for seeing the deep workings of our own body-minds. When we are alone in the wilderness, the distinctly human afflictions of others are absent, and so cannot reinforce our own afflictions. Imagine what would happen if we genetically engineered ourselves so that we could no longer resonate with the natural patterns of nature. These are not the kinds of concerns that can be laid to rest by any scientific data.

Biogenetic warfare is the most serious short-term threat of genetic engineering to human life. Because Buddhism is a fundamentally pacifist tradition, it should be gravely concerned with the use of genetic engineering in warfare as an efficient means for causing widespread suffering and death. International terrorists have already begun seriously considering the deployment of genetically engineered viruses. This use is almost impossible to regulate because the same equipment and technology that are used commercially can easily be transferred to military application. During the late 1980s, the former Soviet Union had 60,000 people working on biowarfare, including genetically engineered pathogens. In one of their more frightening projects, they attempted to combine smallpox virus with Ebola virus. No one knows for sure where most of the scientists have gone, or what they have taken with them.

Despite the benefits of genetic engineering trumpeted in the media—primarily to repair genetic flaws, cure disease, and increase food production—in the overwhelming number of cases, I believe the price is too high to pay. To insure megaprofits for multinational corporations well into the next century, we will have to mortgage the biosphere, seriously compromise life on the planet, and maybe even harm our potential for enlightenment. Genetic engineering poses serious risks to human health and to the environment. It raises serious ethical questions about the right of human beings to alter life on the planet, both sentient and non-sentient, for the benefit of a few.

What makes genetic engineering special is both its power and its irreversibility. Its ability to harm human, animal, and plant life is a quantum leap greater than most other technologies and does not leave room for mistakes. Results of flaws in this technology cannot be recalled and fixed, but become the negative heritage to countless future generations.


From a Buddhist perspective, the problems with genetic engineering are no different in principle from most other problems we face in our daily life. They are all the result of afflictions—desire, anger, ignorance, and so forth. What makes the situation with genetic engineering unique is the difference in the degree of damage it can do to life on the planet and the irreversibility of its effect on us and on the environment. There is probably not a single answer to the question of what Buddhists should do about these problems. Some may decide to work actively with the many groups trying to raise public awareness and stop the most blatant dangers. Others may prefer to work directly on the mind ground and try to generate the wisdom and compassion that transforms the minds of all sentient beings toward awakening. Yet others will undoubtedly put their heads in the sand and let the karma fall where it may.



http://online.sfsu.e...GEBuddhism.html

This post has been edited by Hannibal: 17 March 2005 - 10:06 PM

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities also has the power to make you commit atrocities."
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)


Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
0

#10 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:17 PM

sounds like the budhist are only opposed to severe genetic modifications. Altering natural functions on a fully funtional human being, like putting pharmacudicals in breast milk is an irresponsible idea.

my idea, as far as i can tell, is completelyey void of ethical debate as it the only life involved is cellular, not sentient.
0

#11 User is offline   Hannibal Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 1,013
  • Joined: 29-October 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:19 PM

You obviously didn't read it, or as usual, you only select what is convenient for your mind to handle. ALL LIFE FORMS are to be respected. USING tissue from any lifeform as a TOOL goes against all Buddhist principles. CLONING humans is wrong, because it is a disruption of karma.
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities also has the power to make you commit atrocities."
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)


Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
0

#12 User is offline   Hannibal Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 1,013
  • Joined: 29-October 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:21 PM

A human hand, skin, tits, ass, eyeballs, human life parts are not to be manufactured, bought, sold, used as tools. Period.
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities also has the power to make you commit atrocities."
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)


Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
0

#13 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:32 PM

I did read the article... I am familiar with their doctrine on how sacred all life is... they believe it is better to let a lion eat you than to kill it.

I DON'T...

and rather than go into it i appraoched the only surface argument they had. I respect their believes, but i was only interested in arguing the physical basics. everytime you scratch your neck your killing millions of organisms living on you, but for obvious reasons i thought it would be petty to tackle that part of the deabte as i already knew they stood on that point...

jesus! that's why i brought them up in the first place, it was an obvious joke as everyone is familiar with their doctrine...

the only reason i made a post at all afterwards, was because that article pointed out another potential use for the technology being researched, that i found to be something i myself was oppoesed to...

don't be so quite to assume i've missed the point.

get used to my subtlties... dude!
and you'll find yourself entertained instead of worked up...
0

#14 User is offline   Hannibal Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 1,013
  • Joined: 29-October 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:35 PM

convenient once again.


...dude.


read my susbtitles jack.
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities also has the power to make you commit atrocities."
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)


Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
0

#15 User is offline   use the force Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 28-November 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 March 2005 - 10:40 PM

If we can clone spare body parts, why not? It can save and fix millions of lives. Its not like the hand or leg is gonna have feelings and go insane realizing its just a its only exiatence is to make your life easier or save it.
0

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size