First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply scientists gone mad,they are making 3 person babies now!
333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Online
Posted 1/31/15
My mitochondria want to be the best mitochondria.
27332 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 2/3/15 , edited 2/3/15
There's this very good article that just came out on the topic and explains the gist of it:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/three-parent-babies-explained


Log0 wrote:


aeb0717 wrote:

If you want further details, please research on your own.


That's a good summary. Thanks. Some parts of history are interesting to discuss. Ages were often named after technological advancement weren't they? Bronze, Iron, etc. Dark means unknown, absence of knowledge. Yes, the trigger of that age was way out of my league. What I had in mind was what led it on.


About the Dark Ages, I'd say what happened was basically a post-apocalyptic kind of scenario. There was an advanced civilization and then it completely crumbled under the pressure of invading hordes of zomb... well, barbarians, plus economic collapse, and some say environmental collapse and climate change too. As the result everyone went batshit crazy and plundering became the main economic activity for a while. Much knowledge was lost, technology went back by centuries.

In this mess, the Church actually had a positive action. Monks would transcribe and save old manuscripts and knowledge. After a while they were the only ones able to read and write, especially Latin, in which all the important stuff was written. They were the libraries of the world; thanks to them, as soon as the situation calmed down a little, culture was rebuilt much quicker than it would have been from zero. Enlightened kings like Alfred the Great in England and Charlemagne in France understood the importance of education and started trying to put back the kind of teaching system that the Romans had in place. Alfred, for example, learned to read on his own and translated many books from Latin to English, as well as starting an official history of the kingdom. Charlemagne created schools in his kingdom too, though he never managed to learn to read, to his great dismay. By the year 1200, the technology was probably already beyond pre-fall levels. As the renaissance came along, there was an even greater explosion of science, art, creativity and culture. Among all this it should be remembered that the Catholic church wasn't exactly strict about its tenets. Priests would marry in secret or have lovers. Popes were more like powerful kings or nobles than spiritual guides. Even philosophers would often get away with potentially heretic ideas thanks to the so-called "double truth" hypothesis: they just had to write at the beginning of their books that well, what they were writing was fiction because OF COURSE the existence of God and what was written in the Bible negated all that, but IF that wasn't the case, well, here's how things would be.

The biggest wave of Catholic repression - the one with the burnings, the Inquisition, and so on - actually came later. Basically, what happened is that people like Luther and Calvin got annoyed with the current state of things, which they deemed not very godly. They wanted to restore religion to purity. Luther was in fact a fanatic: he literally said that reason was the enemy of faith, that one had to pluck out the eyes of his own reason if he wanted salvation. The thing went that they made the Protestant Reformation, making their own churches (without either blackjack or hookers, though) and the Church, in a keen marketing move, countered by making ITS OWN "Counter-reformation", which removed blackjack and hookers as well. This tightening of the doctrine brought forward the Inquisition, the forbidden books' index, and all that crap with Galileo, for example. This is the 1600 we're talking about though. I'm not an expert but I get the feeling that even in the Middle Ages they were actually more reasonable than that. The 1600 was more like... think the Christian version of ISIS taking over Europe. That. By the 1700, when the Enlightenment started, they were so full of all that crap they just started making up blown up stories of how bad the Church had been in the past, extending to the Middle Ages. For example, the story that they believed Earth was flat - that's false. No one but the ignorant peasants believed that. The learned people, including Church people, knew it was round and had no problem with that. Look no further than Dante's Divine Comedy for proof - he specifically describes the spherical shape of the Earth, and even the confusing feeling of having his gravity centre switch as he passes through the Earth's core.
Posted 2/3/15
well, whatever. doesnt concern me.
29349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 2/3/15
You know, this reminds me of a Star Trek episode I once saw (the more recent series, I mean- the one with the hot Vulcan lady.... T'Pol I think was her name)...... I'm not even kidding- there was an episode where they come across a 3-gendered species that required a male, female and a 'progenitor' to copulate.
It was quite sad, actually- the progenitors were treated as tools, essentially and it ended with one of them killing itself after spending too much time around humans and realizing how unfair it was......

Random. :/
9447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/3/15
It will probably come out looking like the baby from Eraserhead. (I would Advise against it for this alone.) -_-
10361 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / California
Offline
Posted 2/3/15

AridDxD wrote:

It will probably come out looking like the baby from Eraserhead. (I would Advise against it for this alone.) -_-


I expected more scientific knowledge from a Canadian. Scientists use mitochondrial DNA to make a "three person" baby, and suddenly they're crazy. I thought we were supposed to save the shit-losing for something worth losing it over, like human cloning.
9447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/3/15 , edited 2/3/15

Lethargic_leopard_Seal wrote:


AridDxD wrote:

It will probably come out looking like the baby from Eraserhead. (I would Advise against it for this alone.) -_-


I expected more scientific knowledge from a Canadian. Scientists use mitochondrial DNA to make a "three person" baby, and suddenly they're crazy. I thought we were supposed to save the shit-losing for something worth losing it over, like human cloning.


I know this, I was simply playing devil's advocate.

35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/3/15 , edited 2/3/15
Let's consider the complaints of the church:

1. Mitochondrial donation hasn't been thoroughly tested enough to ensure its safety.

Wrong. This method has been subjected to testing for years (since the 1980s, in fact), and the results of three reviews by the HFEA have determined that there are no safety concerns associated therewith whatsoever. As to the claim that the international scientific community isn't convinced that the techniques are safe...source? Because there was an open letter signed by 40 scientists from 14 countries (including the United States) submitted in favor of modifying the law to allow for this.

2. Mitochondrial donation entails the destruction of fetuses.

Nope. There's a way to do this prior to even having fertilized the donor's egg called a Maternal Spindle Transfer. It's outlined on page 3 of this plain language explanation:

http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/2014-10-01_Mitochondrial_donation__an_introductory_briefing_note_-_final.pdf

The other method, Pronuclear Transfer (explained on page 4), does not require that the transfer of paternal/maternal pronuclei occur after an embryo has already been established, and in fact the method actually calls for this to take place prior to that point (for obvious reasons). The donor egg is fertilized prior to the transfer in PNT, so this might be an ethical dilemma for people who consider personhood to be something which is conferred at fertilization. But let's remember something: the fertilized donor egg hasn't been implanted yet when the pronuclei are transferred into it. It's not even a "potential life" at the point it is enucleated.

From where I'm sitting the church hasn't really advanced particularly strong arguments against modification of the law to allow for mitochondrial donation. Now, let's have a look at how Parliament responded:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/03/mps-vote-favour-three-person-embryo-law

This pleases me.
8954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / New York
Offline
Posted 2/3/15

Lowlights wrote:

Absolutely nothing could ever go wrong.

These scientists know what they are doing.

Probably.



"probably" haha
18602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/3/15

Klaixce wrote:


Lowlights wrote:

Absolutely nothing could ever go wrong.

These scientists know what they are doing.

Probably.



"probably" haha


"Sometimes"
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.