Caros colegas,
Acho que nos ficaria mal passar ao lado da interessante e polémica questão da clonagem, em particular da perspectiva de se vir a aplicar aos humanos. Escrevi um breve depoimento sobre a matéria para outro local, e venho submetê-lo à opinião e escrutínio da lista, na esperança que sirva de início de discussão.
Saudações amigas do
Humberto Rosa
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Acho muito provável que a possibilidade técnica de clonar seres humanos venha a existir, já que não há na nossa biologia da reprodução nada de intrinsecamente diferente da dos demais mammferos. Não creio, aliás, que seja negativo saber fazê-lo: nunca é o conhecimento que é mau, o que pode ser condenavel é a forma de o obter, ou as suas aplicações.
Convém esclarecer que um clone humano não seria uma "cópia" ou "duplicação" de outrém, mas antes um gémeo de outra geração. O património genético seria o mesmo, mas a nova pessoa propriamente dita - a sua personalidade, identidade e capacidades - seriam diferentes, já que são determinados em larga medida pela vida pós-uterina. Depois, a clonagem em si não seria uma ameaça à diversidade humana, salvo se aplicada generalizadamente e em detrimento da reprodução sexuada. E esta, para além de não dispensar os machos, é e será sempre indispensável para a nossa própria viabilidade, ja que é através dela que se gera diversidade, a qual é motor da adaptação e do sucesso evolutivo.
É fácil pensar em aplicações da clonagem humana absolutamente intoleráveis de um ponto de vista ético. Mas pode alguém garantir que nunca haverá aplicações benévolas, eticamente legítimas? Eu não posso. Dever-se-ia ter proibido a cisão do núcleo atómico? Talvez não tivesse havido bombas atómicas, resíduos ou acidentes nucleares, mas também se teria perdido muito conhecimento e aplicações positivas da física nuclear.
Vai sendo claro que é da biologia e das suas aplicações que se prenunciam enormes progressos científicos para o próximo século. Ao mesmo tempo, vão surgindo pulsões sociais contrárias aos avanços genéticos e biotecnológicos, como algumas das que se verificam em torno dos organismos e alimentos geneticamente modificados. Ora, se os riscos destas tecnologias são reais, também as suas potencialidades benéficas o são. É em particular da investigação em biologia humana que poderá resultar a nossa progressiva libertação da lei da morte... Duvido que qualquer proibição absoluta seja recomendavel a priori. Quanto à clonagem, antes preferiria que se caminhasse no sentido de uma regulamentação estrita, com avaliação ética profunda, do que para uma ofensiva de proibição intempestiva e generalizada. Mas admito que possa ser socialmente exigível, nesta fase, uma abordagem proibicionista cautelar.
Humberto D. Rosa
_____________________________________________________________________
Em rela,ão à recente missiva vinda do Humberto, tenho os seguintes comentarios:
"acho que nos ficaria mal passar ao lado da interessante e polémica questão da clonagem"
Infelizmente, muito mais coisas podem ficar-nos mal quando as deixamos passar ao lado. Esta lista tem sido de uma bocejante apatia de há uns tempos para cá, ainda bem que o Humberto ainda vai tendo forças para agitar as consciências um bocadinho.
"Convém esclarecer que um clone humano não seria uma "cópia" ou "duplicação" de outrém, mas antes um gémeo de outra geração."
Basta esta constata,ão para que se coloque em causa a legitimidade dos clones humanos, já que não existe um equivalente natural na espécie humana.
"Depois, a clonagem em si não seria uma ameaça à diversidade humana, salvo se aplicada generalizadamente e em detrimento da reprodução sexuada."
Com a aplicação em larga escala de programas de esterilização masculina como feminina, de todos conhecidas, esta dicotomia (assexuado vs. sexuado) coloca-se de uma maneira premente face às oscilações que as sociedades e regimes políticos vão conhecendo ano após ano. Depois, há sempre a questão menos abstracta de saber quais os genótipos que são multiplicados, e com que objectivos. Programas eugenicos àparte, que tal ver os ricos, que por sabe-se lá que mecanismos nunca têm muito controlo sobre as suas descendências, ensaiarem a sua auto-perpetuação e nascerem de novo, tudo programado até aos detalhes de passar as memórias mais caras e íntimas daquele (ou aquela) que se fizesse em clone -- e porque não o comum dos cidadãos, rico ou pobre, alto ou baixo, inteligente ou banal? A aplicabilidade destes procedimentos é muito improvavelmente coisa para todos beneficiarem.
"Dever-se-ia ter proibido a cisão do núcleo atómico? Talvez não tivesse havido bombas atómicas, resíduos ou acidentes nucleares, mas também se teria perdido muito conhecimento e aplicações positivas da física nuclear."
Será que não passariamos todos muito bem sem essas aplicações?
"Ao mesmo tempo, vão surgindo pulsões sociais contrárias aos avanços genéticos e biotecnológicos, como algumas das que se verificam em torno dos organismos e alimentos geneticamente modificados."
E justificadamente! Em nome de quê se desenvolveu um pesticida total como o Roundup? Para que depois todos comprem apenas aquele tipo de soja? Que paisagem produz esta combinação? Constata-se que a biotecnologia está em mãos pouco escrupulosas e que as consciências não estão alerta sobre o percurso que a domina. Essas pulsões sociais, como o Humberto eufemisticamente lhes chama, são reacções (caracteristicamente tardias) não em função da propaganda que os Green Peace e outros fazem, mas à sub-reptícia estratégia de caçadores de lucro a todo o custo como a Monsanto: andavam a fazer-nos isto e ninguém nos dava a saber? É isto a chamada sociedade da informação...
"É em particular da investigação em biologia humana que poderá resultar a nossa progressiva libertação da lei da morte..."
Vide comentário acima sobre a auto-perpetuação, pois o que se sabe sobre senescência não permite antever tal libertação para o mesmo indivíduo.
LOCO GATO
_____________________________________________________________________
Comecando por vincar que as opiniões que anexo nesta msg NÃO REFLECTEM OS MEUS PONTOS DE VISTA, penso que será importante que nos apercebamos que o negócio e os ponto de vista tranquilizantes já começaram a trabalhar. As duas msg's que anexo foram retiradas de "newsgroups" e tropecei neles por acaso, pelo que imagino sejam a ponta do iceberg.
Se isto não provocar reacções, não sei o que poderá provocar....
****************************************
inicio de trancrição de msg
****************************************
THE CASE FOR CLONING HUMANS
The potential for the cloning of humans is now very close to reality, thanks to the historic scientific breakthrough of Ian Wilmut and his colleagues in the UK. This possibility is one of incredible potential benefit for all of us. Unfortunately the debate on this issue has been dominated by sensationalized accounts in the news media and negative emotional reactions. Much of the negativity about human cloning is based simply on the novelty of the concept rather than on any real undesirable consequences. On balance, human cloning would have overwhelmingly positive benefits if regulated in a reasonable way. A complete ban on human cloning by a misinformed public would be short-sighted and misguided. This essay will look at both the potential positive and negative aspects of human cloning. A human clone is really just a time-delayed identical twin of another person. Science fiction stories and movies have given people the impression that human clones would be mindless, soulless zombies or Frankenstein monsters. This is completely incorrect. Human clones would be human beings just like you and me. They are not zombies. They would be carried and delivered after nine months by a human mother and raised in a family just like everyone else. They would require 18 years to reach adulthood just like everyone else. (Consequently, the clone of a person will be much younger than the DNA donor). Like natural twins, they would have a soul. Human clones would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other human being. Human clones will be human beings in every sense.
It should be emphasized that all human cloning should be done on a voluntary basis. The living person who is to be cloned would have to give their consent, and the woman who gives birth to the twin and raises the child would also be acting voluntarily.
THE POSITIVE PROSPECTS OF HUMAN CLONING
Many people have asked, "Why would anyone want to clone a human being?" There are at least two good reasons why people should be allowed to clone humans: to allow us to make twins of exceptional individuals, and to allow childless couples to reproduce. In a free society we must also ask, "Are the negative consequences sufficiently compelling that we must prohibit consenting adults from doing this?" We will see that they are not. Exceptional people are valuable in many ways, both culturally and financially. For example, US movie stars and sports stars are often worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Let's take the specific example of Clint Eastwood. His films have grossed several billion dollars over thirty years. Today he is 66 years old and nearing the end of his acting and directing career. He is one of the most popular living movie stars. The cultural and financial value of cloning Clint Eastwood would be enormous. Tens of millions of fans would be ecstatic. Furthermore, this could be done very conveniently. He certainly has the financial resources to pay for the procedure. His new wife is 30 years old, and she could easily carry and deliver the child, which would be brought up in the family. If the Eastwood family decided they wanted to do this, why should government prohibit it?
The same argument applies to sports stars. For example, people have suggested cloning Michael Jordan, the super basketball player. Obviously this should only be done with the approval of Mr. Jordan and a woman, preferably married, who wants to raise the child. Millions of basketball fans would applaud the announcement of the successful cloning of Michael Jordan. There would be widespread interest and incentives in the cloning of other major sports figures, for example Wilt Chamberlain, Willie Mays, and Ted Williams, the last baseball player to bat over .400. Of course, we would have to wait about 20 years for the twins of these great sports figures to reach adulthood, and there is always the possibility that the twin might not be interested in sports. But with the prospect before them of earning millions of dollars, this does not seem very likely.
Why should we not also allow the cloning of distinguished scientists, such as Dr. Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine, and even Dr. Ian Wilmut himself? Wilmut is certain to win the Nobel prize in medicine/physiology. In fact any Nobel prize winner would be worth cloning for the potential future contribution which their twin might make. Again we are talking about the decision being made by the individuals directly involved: the DNA donor, the woman who will bear the child, and her husband who would help in raising the child.
At the present time we cannot be sure what percentage of twins of distinguished people will make equally valuable contributions, but if we ban cloning we will never know. If we find that clones of distinguished people are not living up to the reputations of their predecessors, then the incentive for human cloning will be diminished, and we would see human cloning done less frequently based on individual choice.
THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF HUMAN CLONING
Few human activities are free of negative consequences. Human cloning is no exception. Fifty thousand people die in automobile accidents every year in the United States, and there are many fatal plane crashes, often involving hundreds of people dying in a single accident. Yet we do not think of banning automobiles and airplanes, because these technologies are overwhelmingly beneficial. In contrast, once the technology is perfected, human cloning is unlikely to cause any human deaths at all.
Let us now consider some of the major objections to human cloning which have been made:
"The very thought is repugnant and disgusting."
Are natural twins or triplets repugnant and disgusting? No. So why should an artificially created twin be considered disgusting? This reaction in many cases is simply a response to misinformation and confusion about the concept of a human clone. But if you find cloning offensive, by all means don't do it. Even if many people still consider the thought of human clones disgusting, this is not sufficient grounds for a prohibition. For the sake of individual freedom, many activities are allowed in this world which people find disgusting. For example many people find nose rings and sex change operations disgusting, but these are not outlawed because we value freedom of choice. There is a notion that truly "victimless crimes" should not be crimes. In the case of human cloning, who would be the victim? It is difficult to believe that the human clones would consider themselves victims simply because they share the same genetic code as someone else. Identical twins do not think of themselves as victims. It is also difficult to see how society as a whole would be victimized by allowing human cloning. Human clones are likely to think of themselves as special, particularly when they are the twins of distinguished individuals. Where is the problem?
"It would diminish genetic diversity, leaving us more vulnerable to disease epidemics, etc."
There are at least five billion people on this planet. Certainly the creation of human clones would be on a very modest scale for many years, because of the costs involved and because most women will not want to be a surrogate mother. It will be many decades before the total number of human clones approaches 1,000,000 people in the entire world. On a percentage basis they would constitute a microscopic fraction of the total population, and would not have any effect on the genetic diversity of the human population. I will also argue below that human cloning may actually allow us to recover lost genetic diversity. If at a distant future date human cloning became widespread, then some limitation of this activity would be warranted. However, bear in mind that even if one clone of every person on the planet were created, the genetic diversity would be undiminished because we would still have five billion genetically different individuals.
"It could lead to the creation of human monsters or freaks."
Human cloning is not the same as human genetic engineering. In human cloning, the DNA is copied to create someone who is an exact twin of an existing person, and consequently not a monster or a freak. Human genetic engineering would involve the modification of human DNA to create a person who may be unlike any person who previously existed. This could conceivably lead to the creation of very unusual individuals, even monsters. Human genetic engineering, while having vast positive potential, is indeed a very risky undertaking and should be conducted only with the greatest circumspection and oversight.
"Evil dictators might abuse human cloning."
There is the possibility that unscrupulous dictators such as Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein might try to perpetuate their power by creating a clone of themselves and transferring power to the clone when they die. There is also the possibility that such people might try to create a super army of thousands of clones of Arnold Schwarzeneger, and so on. These possibilities cannot be dismissed. However, it is important to keep in mind that passing laws in the US or other democratic countries cannot control the behavior of rogue dictators in totalitarian countries. The prohibition of human cloning in the US or Europe is not going to stop human cloning in Iraq.
"People might clone themselves just to obtain organs for transplant."
A human clone is a human being. In a free society you cannot compel another human being to give you one of their internal organs. You certainly cannot kill another human being to obtain one of their organs. Existing laws already prevent such abuse. Note also that if your clone-twin is injured in an accident, you might be asked to give up one of your organs to save the clone!
"Do we really want 200 clones of Sophia Loren or Cindy Crawford?"
Perhaps not. However, the idea of replicating beautiful women does not sound so bad to most men. If we are talking about the cloning of a living person, and their consent is required, as it should be by law, they are probably not going to agree to donate DNA for 200 clones. A living person is likely to approve the creation of at most a very few clones of themselves. If we are talking about cloning someone who is now dead, a more distant possibility, then the question of limiting the number of clone-twins becomes a subject for thought and debate. We will have plenty of time for this debate. Certainly the mere existence of multiple individuals with identical appearances, as with triplets and quintuplets, is not inherently degrading to the humanity of those individuals.
"It amounts to playing God."
The Bible and the holy texts of other major religions certainly do not explicitly prohibit human cloning. There will be many who think that cloning humans is "wrong" for religious reasons. These people should of course not participate in cloning. The major issue is whether people who believe it is wrong have a right to dictate what other people may do who believe differently. Legal enforcement of religious principles is a poor idea. In contrast with abortion, which involves the termination of the life of a fetus, cloning involves the creation of new life. Consequently, opposition to human cloning is not firmly based on established moral principles. It is also possible to argue that if God had not wanted us to clone mammals or people, he would not have created Dr. Wilmut. By all means remain true to your own beliefs, but don't tell me what to do with my DNA. I personally wouldn't want to clone myself, but free people should be free to make that choice without compulsion from society.
DESIRABLE GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
Human cloning is a new and unexplored legal arena and will definitely require some legal regulation to prevent abuse. Here are some suggestions for regulations which seem advisable:
1. Human clones should be declared to have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other human being. People will not be able to keep a human clone in the wine cellar for spare body parts any more than they can an identical twin. The abuse of any human being is a crime, regardless of whether or not their genetic code is unique.
2. A living person should not be cloned without their written consent. A person is entitled to an automatic copyright for their genetic code, and this should remain under their control. A person should be allowed to specify in their will whether they wish to allow themselves to be cloned after their death, and under what circumstances. We may want to prohibit the cloning of someone who has not reached adulthood, because they may not have the maturity to make this kind of decision.
3. There is reason to believe that a disposition to violence and murder are genetically determined. The cloning of convicted murderers and other violent criminals should be prohibited. The world has enough criminals without artificially creating more of them. This should definitely include notorious mass-murderers of the past, such as Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin.
CLONING THE DEAD
The Wilmut cloning procedure requires a living cell from which the nucleus can be extracted. However, let us allow ourselves to look ahead to the possibility that future research may discover a method for creating a clone from non-living DNA. Any biologist would be brave indeed to now declare that this is impossible. All human tissue contains DNA and could potentially be a source for cloning. This includes human hair and bones. Locks of hair of many famous people from the past have been preserved. This list includes Isaac Newton, Napoleon, Beethoven, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, and John Lennon. For example, not too long ago some of Isaac Newton's hair was chemically tested and it was discovered to contain a high concentration of arsenic, due to his chemical experiments. Until now these locks of hair were merely curiosities. With human cloning on the edge of reality, they now take on a much greater significance. It is entirely possible that great men and women of the past could be cloned from samples of their hair, tissue, or bones. Albert Einstein's entire brain has been preserved in a jar. The location of the bones of many other famous people, such as Abraham Lincoln, are known. We may now want to take steps to ensure that tissue samples of distinguished people of the past are adequately preserved from destruction, if necessary by law.
The prospect of cloning outstanding people of the past is an extremely exciting possibility, and justifies the most intensive research efforts. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are two of the greatest scientists of all time. Imagine the potential for scientific advancement if these two scientists could be cloned and educated in the 21st century. Having due regard for cultural sensitivities, Newton's clone would be raised in England, and Einstein's clone would no doubt be raised in a Jewish family, perhaps by the actual descendants of Einstein. As with clones of movie stars and sports figures, there is no guarantee than their twins would necessarily want to study physics. They might instead find some other field of science more interesting in their new existence, such as artificial intelligence or genetic engineering. Assuming they were born at the same time, it would even be possible for the clone-twins of Newton and Einstein to collaborate scientifically! What scientific marvels might these two great minds discover working together?
It is also possible to imagine that the great political leaders of the past might be cloned from hair or bone samples. Names that come to mind include Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Of course a person's life experience has a major impact on their personality, interests, and ambitions. Yet it does not seem unlikely that some of the twins of these great men might also want to enter politics and even aspire to high office. How incredibly exciting it would be to witness a presidential race in the next century between the twin of Abraham Lincoln and the twin of Franklin Roosevelt, unstricken by polio. Who would win in a contest between clone-twins of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan? Certainly we would all be winners in this exciting future. Would the twin of Winston Churchill once again be chosen prime minister of Great Britain, or would he be out of place in the presumed peace of the 21st century, and devote himself to historical writing?
There would also be tremendous interest and advantage in cloning great sports figures of the past, such as Jim Thorpe, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Jesse Owens. The Olympic games of the year 2032 would be a sensation if the clone-twins of Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens were to compete against each other.
Another potential for human cloning may be in the partial restitution of great iniquities of the past. It is possible that many of the millions of victims of the Nazi concentration camps could be cloned to recover lost genetic strains. The same technology that could clone Adolf Hitler could also be used to clone Anne Frank! In Russia there remains a serious concern about the diminution of the gene pool caused by the mass executions of Stalin. Cloning could in a sense give a chance for new life to individuals of the past whose lives were unjustly and prematurely ended.
And what about DNA from the Egyptian mummies? Perhaps the ancient Egyptians were wiser than we thought. The complete mummy of Rameses II reposes in excellent condition in the Egyptian museum in Cairo. This is the Pharaoh of the Old Testament. A technology for human cloning would allow a modern Egyptian surrogate mother to give birth to the twin of this great historical figure. Who would not thrill to see the living image of Rameses II and hear the same voice that spoke to Moses over three thousand years ago? He might become a popular guest on television talk shows.
In conclusion, it is clear that human cloning has enormous potential benefits and few real negative consequences. Like many scientific "threats" of the past, such as airplanes and computers, after the novelty has worn off it will come to be an accepted part of modern life. In the areas of scientific advancement and cultural achievement, human clones have the potential to make our lives better, richer, and more interesting. With a little common sense and reasonable regulation, human cloning is not something to be feared. We should look forward to it with excited anticipation, and support research which will hasten its realization. Exceptional people are among the world's greatest treasures, and human cloning will allow us to preserve and even recover these treasures.
Steven Vere
Boulder Creek, CA
USA
********************************************
fim de transcrição
********************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970311181725.00692a68@correio.cc.fc.ul.pt> Subject: Clonagem humana 2/2
Vincar novamente que as opinióes que anexo nesta msg NÃO REFLECTEM OS MEUS PONTOS DE VISTA, aqui vai a segunda, talvez mais saborosa que a primeira
****************************************
inicio de trancrição de msg
****************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheap, Commercial Human Cloning
In the mid 1980s, I & O Publishing Company was accumulating cash assets of $500,000 needed to initiate aggressive, lone-wolf research on human cloning. That research would have been done off shore -- beyond the reach of government political-agenda laws and FDA-type regulations. On November 3, 1986, sixteen armed federal agents violently destroyed I & O Publishing Company, hospitalizing an editor, and seizing the records and hard assets needed to initiate that clandestine research. ...The founder of I & O and the cloning project was imprisoned.
Today, phoenix-like interests once again seek to finance such off-shore research. Genetic repair and physical rejuvenation as well as organ transplants and spare parts from rapidly matured clones cheaply grown in electrochemical/electromagnetic "cultures" is the commercial goal. Serious, technically competent individuals or companies are invited to respond. ...Proposals should include as much detail and background as possible.
All scientifically sound proposals needed to accomplish this the greatest of human ventures to benefit conscious beings will be considered. ...Political-agenda laws and bureaucratic regulations will be bypassed to reach the supreme moral goal of conscious beings -- eternal prosperity and happiness.
For complete information, review http://www.neo-tech.com; also, enter "biological immortality", "cloning", "physics", and "I-ness" into the search engine on that web site.
Readers of this message are encouraged to post or email its information to potentially interested parties. Such parties may respond to think999@ix.netcom.com
% Dr. John Flint
---------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUTH-REJUVENATING IMMORTALITY NOW
(Also see Appendix F and Neo-Tech V)
Animals live, age, and die without choice, according to their environment and biological nature. That no-choice situation does not exist for human beings. Only human beings have the choice and power to control nature. All people can learn to continuously expand the value of their lives. They do that by increasingly developing knowledge and productivity to experience increasing earned power, prosperity, and happiness. Likewise, all people can learn how to continuously extend their biological/psychological lives through Neo-Tech knowledge, technology, and business. Youth-rejuvenating immortality is the supreme moral achievement for conscious beings as their individual lives become increasingly valuable with increasing age, knowledge, and experience.
Life can be immortal. Today, for the first time, no one has to age and then die -- intellectually, psychologically, or physically. With current technology, free of mysticism and neocheating, commercial biological immortality for all conscious beings is possible in a decade or less by not one but by several different scientifically feasible routes. Indeed, youth-perpetuating biological immortality will be quickly accomplished when the current anti-life, mystical/neocheating cultures are collapsed by Neo-Tech. With that collapse, all the professional mystics and neocheaters will lose their power. In their place will rise a Neo-Tech/Neothink society in which the life of the individual is revered above all else as the supreme value in the universe. [Re: Concept 116, Table 51, Neo-Tech Reference Encyclopedia].
In a Neo-Tech/Neothink society, self-rejuvenation of and/or exact-replica replacement of body parts, including the entire body could be possible in less than ten years through already known biological techniques and future nanotechnologies. Today, however, the primary problem of achieving youth-rejuvenating immortality is not medical or technical, but is philosophical. ...With Neo-Tech curing the always terminal disease of mysticism, conscious life will change from always terminal to forever eternal.
Biological immortality could be achieved quickly in an unregulated, free-enterprise, Neo-Tech atmosphere. That business atmosphere of fully integrated thinking and honesty would boom commercial research seeking maximum profits from rejuvenation developments and immortality services. Non-aging biological immortality would have the widest market and maximum value of any commercial product or service possible to conscious beings.
Yet, the enormous commercial and moral incentives to achieve human immortality remain unrecognized because of the prevailing, mystical, anti-life philosophies and the neocheating "authorities" whose control over value production prevent the motivation and freedom for producers to develop biological immortality.
Absolute I-ness immortality accomplished by creating a perfectly restorable conscious mind and sense of self (I-ness) would have a profound psychological impact on every productive human being: Imagine the impact of planning onés own life for the next 300 years. Imagine the time that would be available to build accomplishments, careers, and interests. Imagine if onés life span were suddenly expanded to 300 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years. Imagine the value and respect placed on human lives that forever increased in value. ...Current technology indicates that such definitive, biological immortality would be both scientifically and technically possible in less than a decade in a free society that recognizes individual consciousness as the supreme value in the universe.
Pending further technological development, biological immortality would include the transfer of onés consciousness and sense of onés self (I-ness) into genetically identical entities (e.g., to blank or tabula-rasa brains in cloned bodies). Neo-Tech V lists other routes to non-aging biological immortality feasible within the scope of current technology. Neo-Tech Pincer Movement #1, volume #2, Guns-and-Fists Newsletter #3-2 also demonstrates why the concept of cryonics is axiomatically flawed, guarantees death, and plays a negative role toward achieving I-ness immortality.
The Value of Life:
Einstein and the Factory Worker
If Einstein -- or just his brain -- could have been kept functioning after his death, imagine the additional benefits that mind would have bestowed on society: Is not that the main motivation for and value of immortality? Is not that the moral purpose of biological immortality?
No, absolutely not. That is an altruistic view that stymies the effort, motivation, and moral mandate needed to develop commercial I-ness immortality within our generation.
The entire purpose, motivation, and goal of biological immortality is not so a brain can continue to serve some "higher" cause, but so the flesh-and-blood individual, Einstein or a productive factory worker, can continue to physically enjoy life and create happiness for his or her own self and loved ones by continually producing values for others. As a result (not a purpose), the immortal individual will increasingly benefit others and society as that person becomes increasingly knowledgeable, experienced, and efficient at producing competitive values desired by others.
The value of Einstein's or anyone elsés life is meaningful only to onés own flesh-and-blood life and living happiness, not to some society or "higher" cause.
Why Do So Many People
Not Want to Live Forever?
Because They Fail to Earn Guiltless Prosperity, Love, and Happiness Needed to Experience the Passion to Live and Love Forever.
The more people let mysticism influence their lives, the more they become unknowledgeable, undermine values, grow lazy, lose happiness, dislike life. With increasing mysticism, they become increasingly incompetent to earn honest values, power, love, and happiness. In addition, the more people accept mysticism, the more neocheaters can manipulate them. And the more manipulated and less successful one becomes, the more painful and difficult life becomes until the idea of living forever becomes abhorrent, even terrifying. ...Only people who purge themselves of hateful, destructive mysticism can earn the values, power, and happiness needed to experience the passion to live and love forever.
Unstoppable Neo-Tech
Professional mystics and neocheaters have perfected and perpetuated their hoax of inverted values for the past 2000 years. But today, Neo-Tech is in forward motion around the world. The Neo-Tech matrix is spreading. It is unstoppable, irreversible, and will collapse the entire destructive hoax of mysticism. No mystic or neocheater can stop Neo-Tech from eliminating mysticism and its symbiotic neocheaters.
Happiness Forever
With life ageless and immortal, mystic-free conscious beings can forever experience growing prosperity, love, happiness, and life itself through productive work, romantic love, psychuous pleasures, and I-ness immortality. ...The moral purpose of all conscious life would then be met -- increasing happiness forever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.neo-tech.com
********************************************
fim de transcrição
********************************************
Esperam-se as reacções a este brilhante novo mundo...
Saudações.
***********************************************************
*********************************************************** _____________________________________________________________________
Confesso que não tive vagar para ler as citações enviadas pelo Feijó, embora as tenha guardadas para os próximos dias... Desde já obrigado, e as minhas desculpas se estiver a ser redundante com o que passo a dizer.
Uma das principais barreiras à solução de problemas clinicos é a impossibilidade de (pelo menos eticamente) realizar experiências mais radicais ou de manipular cruzamentos com seres humanos. Mas os clones abririam uma brecha nessa barreira, e não tenho dúvidas que após alguns debates acalorados se passariam a usar clones para experiências que só se faziam com roedores ou, na pior das hipóteses, símios. O valor da vida de cada membro de um clone estaria na directa proporção do custo de "produção" e "manutenção" desse membro. No fundo, até que me posso estar nas tintas para o destino dos clones, o problema é se me confundem com um membro de um clone. Terei de ir a correr buscar um certificado de autenticidade biológica?
No outro dia veio aí uma manchete sensacional sobre "um clone" que andava aí à solta. (Alguém leu a entrevista?) Quem o produziu, quem ou em nome do quê o soltou? (ou será que fugiu, de gatas provavelmente...)? Mas o perigo é real! Bem doseadinha, a produção de clones confundiria toda a gente: eu encontro-me com fulana, gosto dela mas um belo dia acabo por perguntar: pertencerá a um clone? À minha volta não lhe vejo um réplica, nem da mesma idade nem doutra idade, mas não poderá haver outra de 100 em 100 kms? E o apresentarem-me os "pais" pode não convencer-me da sua genuína pertença ao mundo natural. E depois, se eu prefiro *indivíduos* há-de haver quem prefira clones. Que efeito isso terá sobre a genetica da nossa espécie? Posso sempre imaginar que não vou estar cá para ver o desastre, mas não deixa de ser preocupante.
Desde já afirmo que estas reflexóes são possíveis porque sabemos perfeitamente como as regulamentações e proibições a nível nacional ou internacional são impotentes perante interesses mais obscuros.
LOCO GATO
_____________________________________________________________________
Saiu no numero de Março da revista Nature Biotechnology um artigo que considero de interesse geral para os biólogos. É anunciado na capa ("Beyond genetic determinism: the coming revolution in biology"), é da autoria de Richard Strohman (Univ. California; e-mail strohman@uclink4.berkeley.edu) e tem como título "Epigenesis and complexity -- The coming revolution in Biology"). Mesmo soando demasiado profetizante, mesmo tendo coisas discutíveis, só pode ser útil dar-lhe uma olhadela atenta. Algumas citações:
_____________________________________________________________________
We cannot assume, as genetic determinism does, that constraints and developmental rules are all in the form of genetic programs. Most biologists, when pushed, do agree that there is not enough information in any genome capable of mapping out the details by which morphological structures arise in organisms.
There are many examples of (the) failure to predict from mouse or other nonhuman studies what the effect of a given mutation might be in humans. And yet the major studies going forward on nonhuman species assume, to alarge extent, that human function will be thereby illuminated.
The time it took the international community of scientists to complete the theory of the gene starting with the Watson and Crick paper in 1953 was about ten years. What we have been doing ever since has been the normal science of filling in the gaps. Genetic pathways specify organismal function only in rare cases, as in monogenic diseases like sickle cell anemia or muscular dystrophy, where mutation produces dysfunction in a protein of crucuial importance. In these cases the cell (mostly, but not always) has no compensatory mechanism and environmental influences are nil; redundant information at either the genetic or epigenetic levels appears to be absent, and the mutant gene becomes the disease.
(...) information for cellular integration and response is enconded not only in DNA, and there are no genetic programs for this process; rather integration and response come out of the dynamics of the interactive system itself. The system response includes the genome, but is not reducible to it.
It is (...) often made to appear that the only alternative explanation for evolution and other complexities of life must lie outside of science in some kind of creationist construction. Not necessarily so. It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete.
Creatures change their forms without changing their genes. (...) Thus, there is already evidence enough to signal an extension of the evolutionary synthesis to embrace developmental processes as a source of variation on a par with natural selection.
Our students of the future will welcome (the) return to the knowable, but presently unexplored, level of the whole cell (...) a return to the idea of the cell as a whole lies outside of our mainstream biological paradigm.
LOCO GATO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Correção ao Humberto: o Paulo de Oliveira não emitiu nenhuma opinião acerca da aplicação da fisica nuclear. Limitou-se a perguntar se não teríamos passado muito bem sem ela. Não é importante colocar esta pergunta? Ela refere-se às afirmações do Humberto implicando que o avanço da Ciência, se trouxer coisas positivas, obriga-nos a aceitar as coisas negativas. Então cabe perguntar: como teria sido se a Ciência não tivesse avançado nesse sentido? Claro que a radioterapia é importante, mas várias formas de cancro são induzidas pela exposição à radioactividade, segundo sei. Não vou alem disto neste tema, dado que se trata de uma discussão sobre a possibilidade de produzir clones na especie humana. Só quis colocar as afirmações do Humberto num certo prisma.
Quanto a outras das afirmações do Humberto:
"1. *Os pais biológicos dos eventuais clones*
Ao contrario do que já li, creio que um clone teria sempre um pai biológico, o qual seria o mesmo pai, mesmo quando já falecido, do indivíduo que foi clonado"
Nao percebo em que é que isto possa constituir uma atenuante.
"...alegações de que a eventual clonagem humana ameaçaria a diversidade biólogica da nossa espécie. Para isso ser assim, teria de se ter passado a uma opção maciça pela reprodução assexuada (clonagem), o que é muito pouco provável quer pelos custos e complexidade que a técnica sempre deverá manter..."
Hoje os custos são uma coisa, amanhã não sabemos.
"5. *Clonagem para viabilizar a reprodução assistida*
Os casos que a meu ver mais se aproximam da eventual legitimidade da clonagem de humanos são os que tenham a ver com a resolução de problemas de esterilidade num casal, ou com a eliminaão de riscos de transmissão de uma doença hereditária grave dentro de um casal. Alguém tem argumentos que demonstrem da inaceitabilidade ética da clonagem em situações deste tipo? Eu para já não."
Sinceramente, ou não entendo o que o Humberto pretende dizer ou a pergunta não faz sentido: se o indivíduo obtido é um clone de um dos progenitores, em que é que isso corresponde à situação de reprodução normal (sexuada) nesse casal? É de longe muito mais aceitável que façam uma adopção. E como se há-de sentir uma mãe transmissora de hemofilia criando um rapaz que não é geneticamente dela (só do marido), só para evitar os 50% de risco que haveria de ter um filho com a doença? Acho que esta questão tem de ser tornada mais clara.
"Mas - clonagem à parte - nao vejo que a morte seja obrigatoriamente aceitável, mesmo se é (para já) inevitável."
A morte é uma necessidade da Biologia tal como a entendemos.
"Se a Biologia nos vier a ajudar a ir ampliando a duração das nossas curtas vidas, isso é quanto a mim bem-vindo;"
É uma questao totalmente diferente da imortalidade.
Paulo de Oliveira
_____________________________________________________________________
Caros colegas biologos,
Todos pudemos ler, nesta lista, os dois textos transcritos pelo José Feijó, um defendendo a produção de clones humanos, o outro "vendendo" o acesso à imortalidade.
Estou com o Feijó no repúdio de tais textos e das mentalidades que os concebem. Eles mostram como a miragem do lucro sacrifica tudo o que poderia considerar-se alguma contenção ética na manipulação da existência humana. Para gente dessa, negociar a Biologia da espécie humana é tão legítimo como uma transacção de animais domésticos ou artigos fabricados. No segundo texto refere-se insistentemente que aqueles que se opõem a este tipo de aventuras estão imbuidos de um "misticismo" que só tem por consequência refrear o progresso da Humanidade, e isto com um desprezo insultuoso.
Antes do mais, pergunto a mim próprio se o Dr. Wilmut imaginava as repercussões da sua inovação por implicar a aplicação da mesma à espécie humana. Ou ele pertence à laia dos que não conhecem quaisquer limites à ganância, ou então deve estar surpreendido (não digo que arrependido) e chocado. Porque, se eu bem entendo, a produção de um clone de ovelhas é a extensão às espécies animais domésticas de uma prática de grande utilidade em, por exemplo, espécies florestais. Tem interesse económico, está dentro da melhor tradição do apoio científico ao avanço da agricultura. Não tem nada a ver com propagar indivíduos excepcionais (em função dos milhões de dólares que "valem") ou "resolver" problemas de esterilidade, etc..
Mas já falam dele para um prémio Nobel (sem dúvida que de Fisiologia e MEDICINA)...
Insensatez!
LOCO GATO
_____________________________________________________________________
Da mensagem prévia:
On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Paulo Leandro OLiveira wrote:
> barreira, e não tenho duvidas que apos alguns debates acalorados se passariam a usar clones para experiencias que só se faziam com roedores ou, na pior das hipoteses, simios. O valor da vida de cada membro de um clone estaria na directa proporção do custo de "produção" e "manutenção" desse membro.
> se eu prefiro *indivíduos* há-de haver quem prefira clones.
Estou repugnado: Clones de _Homo sapiens_ são pessoas. Indistinguível e inalienavelmente pessoas.
António MARTINS
--------------------------------
O Antonio Martins cita uma parte de uma mensagem minha dizendo-se repugnado. Sem dúvida que a produção em série de seres humanos não lhes retira o estatuto de pessoas. Não pretendia discriminação de qualquer espécie, se é disso que se trata em referência à repugnância...
Mesmo assim, concordo que ao contrapor à noção de indivíduos a noção de clones pode ser incorrecto. Sim senhor, seriam indivíduos, tal como os gémeos monozigóticos o são; esta questão (de linguagem) merece uma revisão do que disse: cada um deverá ter direito a definir à partida se gostaria de cruzar-se com indivíduos obtidos assexuadamente; em minha opiniao, isso é uma legítima opção biológica. Se eticamente não é correcto evitar cruzar-me com base no facto de ser membro de um clone, surge aqui um conflito de direitos, na esfera da reprodução, para o qual não estamos ao que parece preparados.
Apenas quis com a minha mensagem (do que vem citado e não só) reflectir sobre aspectos da vivência em comum como seres humanos. Tenho a percepção de que a possibilidade de se produzirem clones na nossa espécie iria subverter profundamente a existência de todos.
LOCO GATO
_____________________________________________________________________
Aproveito para reiterar que sou um entusiasta da sequenciação do genoma humano, mas não deixo de prestar atenção àqueles que, como o muito categorizado (e competente) Richard Lewontin, tecem considerações da mais diversa ordem alertando para o oculto sentido social, económico e político, deste empreendimento. Escolhi por isso duas citações mais ou menos "hors-texte" do livro "The Doctrine of DNA", da autoria de Richard Lewontin (Penguin). A tradução é minha, desculpem alguma imprecisão. O que interessa é que lhes interesse.
LOCO GATO
=====================================================================
*** as inter-relações entre os projectos de Genoma Humano e a Sociobiologia ***
"... A hierarquia está completa. Os genes fazem os indivíduos, os indivíduos têm preferencias e comportamentos que lhes são particulares, a colecção de preferências e comportamentos fazem uma cultura, e assim os genes fazem uma cultura. Por isso os biólogos moleculares nos pedem para gastar-se tanto dinheiro quanto seja preciso para descobrirem a sequência do DNA de um ser humano. Dizem que quando soubermos a sequência da molécula que constitui todos os nossos genes, saberemos o que é ser-se humano. Quando soubermos ao que é que parece o nosso DNA, saberemos porque é que alguns de nós são ricos e outros pobres, uns saudáveis e outros doentes, uns fortes e outros fracos."
*** os verdadeiros beneficiários da sequenciação do genoma humano ***
"... Aquilo que a expansão do conhecimento realmente traz é o aumento do poder das instituições sobre os indivíduos."
*** a retórica científica utilizada para justificar as teses sociobiologicas ***
"... A Ciencia consiste, em grande parte, daquilo que os cientistas dizem acerca do mundo, não importa qual seja a verdade àcerca do mundo."
Richard Lewontin
=====================================================================
Quem não se interesse por terminologia não vai querer ler.
Eu não gosto do termo clonagem. É uma das possíveis traduções para o termo inglês cloning -- em particular, a que segue o padrão francês (clonage). Mas lembro-me que em tempos o Prof. Luís Archer usava o termo clonização. O consenso (quanto mais não seja por imposição do uso jornalistico) está a ser clonagem, todos sabemos, mas não lhes parece que tudo isto parte de uma base errada?
Os termos consagrados na nomenclatura biológica são clone (subst.) e clonal (adj.); clonar e clonagem são derivações que reproduzem o uso, peculiar à língua inglesa, de assimilar substantivos a verbos -- foi assim que "nasceu" o verbo _to clone_. E deste derivou a palavra cloning. Não deveríamos (os de outras línguas) ter feito melhor do que traduzir cada uma destas palavras como se o referido processo de assimilação fosse bom uso entre nós?
Pessoalmente nunca comunico falando de clonar ou de clonagem; falo por exemplo de isolamento de sequências de DNA recombinante, frisando sempre o que é o clone (de bactérias, fagos, leveduras, etc.) como sendo uma população de organismos portadora de uma mesma sequência de DNA recombinante.
Faço-o porque o cuidado na escolha dos termos deve levar ao máximo de clareza naquilo que se está a tratar. Actualmente, nos mais diversos meios de comunicação social, fala-se de clonagem tanto de ovelhas como de genes, e para mim dá uma confusão em teoria evitável. Em ambas as situações fala-se de algo baseado em clones, mas os contextos (e procedimentos) são muito diversos, de tal modo que não deixa de sentir-se uma confusão a pairar entre quem não é do metier biológico.
LOCO GATO
_____________________________________________________________________
Uma citação que pode interessar para a discussão que estavamos a ter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloning mammals: what does the future hold? "In a feat of genetic engineering that has been anticipated, and dreaded, more than any other, British researchers are reporting that they have cloned an adult mammal for the first time. The group, headed by Dr. Ian Wilmut, 52, an embryologist at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, has created a lamb using DNA from an adult sheep... Dr. Wilmut dismissed the idea of cloning humans as ethically unacceptable. `I would find it offensive´, he said... `The genie is out of the bottle´, said Dr. Robert Munson, a medical ethicist at the University of Missouri. `This technology is not, in principle, policeable.´"
The Age (Melbourne), 24 February, 1997, p. A7.
Transcrito de: Bioessays Vol. 19 No. 5 (Maio de 1997), pag. 446