X-Message-Number: 7787
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 12:41:40 -0800
From:  (Olaf Henny)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #7775 - #7781

>Message #7779
>From: 
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:45:42 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Thomas, aging and Dolly.
>
>Date sent:  28-FEB-1997 21:28:12 
>
>Thomas, the writing is on the wall. If you persist on holding on to 
>outdated ideas on aging you will be considered inflexible. Cloning
>is going to shake the orthodox aging ideas to their very foundation.

I do not see this happening at all, at least not at this 
stage.

Granted, with a whole lot more research you may be able to 
clone a copy of yourself with an undeveloped brain and 
thereby avoid the taint of equivalent to murder at least in 
the mind of some.  This does not necessarily mean, that in 
such a case the cranial cavity will develop to sufficient 
size to accept yours.  There is a whole lot of ground to 
cover from fooling an egg into accepting a cell of a sheep's 
udder in lieu of a sperm to engineering the DNA of a cell, 
which is most likely not derived from an udder >:-> so that 
the resulting embryo will evolve into a perfect copy of 
yourself, but without a brain and with cranial cavity c/w 
all the hookup connections for your brain to take over. At 
least *I* can see the odd minor difficulties there. ;)

>Some scientist will try and justify old ideas to protect their research
>grants and ego, but eventually they will go the way of the dinosaurs. Why
>join them?

As you can readily infer from the above, if I was a research 
scientist, I would hesitate to abandon all other avenues and 
jumping on the cloning bandwagon.  Although I consider 
myself an optimist, I would not step off the Empire State 
Building supported by naught, but this optimism.

Olaf Henny>Message #7779
>From: 
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:45:42 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Thomas, aging and Dolly.
>
>Date sent:  28-FEB-1997 21:28:12 
>
>Thomas, the writing is on the wall. If you persist on holding on to 
>outdated ideas on aging you will be considered inflexible. Cloning
>is going to shake the orthodox aging ideas to their very foundation.

I do not see this happening at all, at least not at this 
stage.

Granted, with a whole lot more research you may be able to 
clone a copy of yourself with an undeveloped brain and 
thereby avoid the taint of equivalent to murder at least in 
the mind of some.  This does not necessarily mean, that in 
such a case the cranial cavity will develop to sufficient 
size to accept yours.  There is a whole lot of ground to 
cover from fooling an egg into accepting a cell of a sheep's 
udder in lieu of a sperm to engineering the DNA of a cell, 
which is most likely not derived from an udder >:-> so that 
the resulting embryo will evolve into a perfect copy of 
yourself, but without a brain and with cranial cavity c/w 
all the hookup connections for your brain to take over. At 
least *I* can see the odd minor difficulties there. ;)

>Some scientist will try and justify old ideas to protect their research
>grants and ego, but eventually they will go the way of the dinosaurs. Why
>join them?

As you can readily infer from the above, if I was a research 
scientist, I would hesitate to abandon all other avenues and 
jumping on the cloning bandwagon.  Although I consider 
myself an optimist, I would not step off the Empire State 
Building supported by naught, but this optimism.
>


*************************************************
Ridicule and derision are weapons often employed 
by those  who are intellectually outmatched
*************************************************


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7787