Metanet Forums

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projec ... /overview/

An interesting article detailing the development of a completely synthetic cellular organism that is self-replicating. What does this mean for the future? Maybe not a lot, but it could pave the way for a whole new level of genetic engineering that we are only scratching the surface of.


WITH GENETICS WE:LL BE ABLE TO MAKE MONOCORN

Oh boy. I sense another stem cell-war debate in America's near future.

987654321 wrote:Oh boy. I sense another stem cell-war debate in America's near future.

I never understood why people were against it. What are the negatives? :\
(That's meant as a serious question; I actually don't know.)

Universezero wrote:

987654321 wrote:Oh boy. I sense another stem cell-war debate in America's near future.

I never understood why people were against it. What are the negatives? :\
(That's meant as a serious question; I actually don't know.)

The controversy over stem cells concerns embryonic stem cells, which are controversial because getting them involves MURDERING PEOPLE.

Even though said 'people' consist of only around 100 cells.

〜ｓƒｚ〜 wrote:Even though said 'people' consist of only around 100 cells.

If it's under a million, it's not human in my eyes.

Also, cool article. Crazy it took them 15 years to make.

This reminds me of that immortal jellyfish they found.

Universezero wrote:If it's under a million, it's not human in my eyes.

I'd just like to point out how arbitrary and meaningless that number is. The human body is made up of approximately 10 to 50 trillion cells. A million is nothing. You could conceivably not even be aware of a fetus that is a million cells.

hairscapades wrote:

Universezero wrote:If it's under a million, it's not human in my eyes.

I'd just like to point out how arbitrary and meaningless that number is. The human body is made up of approximately 10 to 50 trillion cells. A million is nothing. You could conceivably not even be aware of a fetus that is a million cells.

He was probably just being silly.

a happy song wrote:

hairscapades wrote:

Universezero wrote:If it's under a million, it's not human in my eyes.

I'd just like to point out how arbitrary and meaningless that number is. The human body is made up of approximately 10 to 50 trillion cells. A million is nothing. You could conceivably not even be aware of a fetus that is a million cells.

He was probably just being silly.

Well, he was definitely being silly.

hairscapades wrote:

Universezero wrote:If it's under a million, it's not human in my eyes.

I'd just like to point out how arbitrary and meaningless that number is. The human body is made up of approximately 10 to 50 trillion cells. A million is nothing. You could conceivably not even be aware of a fetus that is a million cells.

QFE. Arbitrary distinctions do not help abortion debates.

The point being I don't see it as murdering.

Universezero wrote:The point being I don't see it as murdering.

But once it hits a million and one cells, it's murder?

There was some riddle by some super old dude at least 100 years ago or whatever that went something like this:
If you look at a pile of sand, you can see clearly that it's a pile. And if you remove one or two grains of sand from the top of the pile, you could still see that it's a pile. But how long can you keep doing this? If you keep removing grains of sand, one at a time, when does it stop being a pile? When there are 100 grains left? When there are 50? Are 10 grains of sand a pile? Five? Three? Two? Surely a single grain can't be a pile of sand, so clearly there must have been a transition at some point from a pile to a non-pile.

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:

Universezero wrote:The point being I don't see it as murdering.

But once it hits a million and one cells, it's murder?

Don't be a pedantic asshole Suki, you know what I mean.

As for the riddle, a pile of sand is a bit different to a human. While with the pile of sand there is no obvious transition from pile to non-pile, there is an obvious one with humans. Birth.

Universezero wrote:

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:

Universezero wrote:The point being I don't see it as murdering.

But once it hits a million and one cells, it's murder?

Don't be a pedantic asshole Suki, you know what I mean.

As for the riddle, a pile of sand is a bit different to a human. While with the pile of sand there is no obvious transition from pile to non-pile, there is an obvious one with humans. Birth.

So, then, you don't really care about cell count. Anything before a nine month term is fair game for killing. (Even though you can pop the baby out at eight months and it might turn human anyway.)

To validate Suki's analogy, at what point does an embryo become a fetus? Surely there is some distinction, but it happens in such a short span of time that it is difficult to tell the exact moment at which an embryo is no longer called such because it has the properties of a fetus.

Universezero wrote:As for the riddle, a pile of sand is a bit different to a human. While with the pile of sand there is no obvious transition from pile to non-pile, there is an obvious one with humans. Birth.

The obviousness of that transition escapes me. The only real, measurable change that occurs for that organism during the act of giving birth is a change in location. Are you suggesting that our humanity is based solely on local? Could you defend that further and say why you think that?

hairscapades wrote:

Universezero wrote:As for the riddle, a pile of sand is a bit different to a human. While with the pile of sand there is no obvious transition from pile to non-pile, there is an obvious one with humans. Birth.

The obviousness of that transition escapes me. The only real, measurable change that occurs for that organism during the act of giving birth is a change in location. Are you suggesting that our humanity is based solely on local? Could you defend that further and say why you think that?

As a society, birth has been labeled the official point in time at which you can be called human. Your birth certificate, which is evidence of your existence, notes this time. Another point is that I'm a very black and white kind of guy. As southpaw and others have said, the transition between embryo and fetus is vague. This is why I like birth, in that it is a definite point of reference.
Besides which, most babies are aborted way before the vagueness of 'embryo or fetus?' is ever achieved.

Universezero wrote:As a society, birth has been labeled the official point in time at which you can be called human. Your birth certificate, which is evidence of your existence, notes this time.

I don't have an argument against that but would just like to say that, while I'm staunchly pro-choice, I find third trimester abortions difficult to stomach.

hairscapades wrote:

Universezero wrote:As a society, birth has been labeled the official point in time at which you can be called human. Your birth certificate, which is evidence of your existence, notes this time.

I don't have an argument against that but would just like to say that, while I'm staunchly pro-choice, I find third trimester abortions difficult to stomach.

I feel the same way. I'm Pro-Choice but I feel almost like if you are deciding eight months in that, "Hey, a baby was a shitty idea!", you are not fit to be a parent.

hairscapades wrote:

Universezero wrote:As a society, birth has been labeled the official point in time at which you can be called human. Your birth certificate, which is evidence of your existence, notes this time.

I don't have an argument against that but would just like to say that, while I'm staunchly pro-choice, I find third trimester abortions difficult to stomach.

/me hopes to god that was completely intentional

Birth signifies that you have certain, inalienable rights as a human being and that you are recognized as a citizen of whatever country or territory you were born in. Many people consider you to be human well before you are birthed. To say that birth is what defines you as human is a bit nearsighted. Although the difference between a pile and a non-pile of sand is impossible to determine accurately, you can still look at a pile of sand and a few grains of sand and determine that one is just a small collection of sand and another is a pile. Who cares where the line of distinction is drawn? After a certain point it is obvious that a collection has grown into a pile and very few people will object to that statement.

So if a baby has objectively grown beyond a certain point where we can say that it has the features and development of a human we can call it a human, even if it is still in the womb. Where that line of distinction is does not matter, just that it happens at some point is what is important.

To sort of come around back to the topic, do you think it's possible that we'll be able to synthetically develop human DNA and create humans from nothing more than a few bottles of chemicals and an "empty" placenta cell?

SłappyMcGee wrote:I feel the same way. I'm Pro-Choice but I feel almost like if you are deciding eight months in that, "Hey, a baby was a shitty idea!", you are not fit to be a parent.

Isn't that sort of the idea? If you feel that way at 8 months and are allowed to act on that feeling, then you're not going to be a parent.

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:

SłappyMcGee wrote:I feel the same way. I'm Pro-Choice but I feel almost like if you are deciding eight months in that, "Hey, a baby was a shitty idea!", you are not fit to be a parent.

Isn't that sort of the idea? If you feel that way at 8 months and are allowed to act on that feeling, then you're not going to be a parent.

Yeah, I guess my -but- was misplaced. All I mean is that third trimester abortions are pretty grand, and more should get them.

SłappyMcGee wrote:

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:

SłappyMcGee wrote:I feel the same way. I'm Pro-Choice but I feel almost like if you are deciding eight months in that, "Hey, a baby was a shitty idea!", you are not fit to be a parent.

Isn't that sort of the idea? If you feel that way at 8 months and are allowed to act on that feeling, then you're not going to be a parent.

Yeah, I guess my -but- was misplaced. All I mean is that third trimester abortions are pretty grand, and more should get them.

Amen. I hate babies.

Ahahahaha. This is the best thread ever.

It needs an LV post.