[extropy-chat] SotU and human cloning/modification

[Robert Bradbury]

On 2/1/06, Neil H. <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was rather worried by this part of the address:


The entire paragraph was full of holes.  Steve Coles posted his
"disassembly" of it on the GRG list.  One of the problems is that the
definition of "human" is open to all kinds of interpretations.  Under the
traditional interpretation its the "looks like a duck" criteria.  But we are
already putting human genes into mice and rats.  At what point do they
become micemans and ratmans?  Leaving aside the physiological problems (the
requirement for mice and rats with very large heads to sustain a much larger
number of neurons) it is clear that one could relatively easily  replace the
"brain" genes in chimpanzees, dolphins, bears, etc. (any species with a
relatively large skull) with their human equivalents and get a species which
is functionally closer to a "normal" human than some "humans" that are
living with significantly damaged genomes.  Mind you getting them to the
point where they could interbreed with humans would be quite a bit more
difficult.   I know of nothing in the classical debate about cloning which
would prevent this kind of R&D.

The entire debate is going to get *very* interesting in about a decade when
we have a better handle on *what* genes are critical to intelligence and we
have the means to identify them in utero (leading to intelligence selection
as one now has sex selection in India and China) and have robust methods to
replace those genes in embryos (Sangamo has already demonstrated the
feasibility of this in blood stem cells).  Then the question will be when is
allowing the birth of "natural" children (less capable than what they could
be) a form of child abuse?

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/970393af/attachment.html>