[HN Gopher] Two research teams grew synthetic mouse embryos usin...
___________________________________________________________________
Two research teams grew synthetic mouse embryos using stem cells
Author : gmays
Score : 75 points
Date : 2022-08-26 17:58 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| lisper wrote:
| How is this different from cloning?
| sometimeshuman wrote:
| As I understand it, this procedure would result in a near perfect
| clone baring a few random mutations in the stem cell which they
| could probably screen for.
|
| To digress. I want a clone, more than anything. It's only _thing_
| I 'd pay more than $100k+ for aside from housing.
|
| I submit that society would benefit if every other generation was
| a clone. If I were raised by my parent-clone I would have matured
| faster and been more skilled at playing baby-roulette with a
| natural child.
|
| Whenever I meet a 20-30 year old that has the temperament and
| calmness of a 40-50 year old I suspect one of two things:
|
| 1) their young-ish parents won at baby-roulette and their child
| had a personality similar to theirs and were able to guide them
| through adolescence in a more optimal way.
|
| 2) their parents were older and maturer and could navigate the
| personality conflicts in a way that didn't lead to long-term
| family dysfunction.
|
| but even #2 is rare since not all older parents can handle all
| personality types, hence my suggestion for a third option: family
| lines based on alternate generation cloning.
| axg11 wrote:
| >To digress. I want a clone, more than anything. It's only
| thing I'd pay more than $100k+ for aside from housing.
|
| Can you explain why you want a clone? Genetically identical
| twins can and do end up having very different lives and
| personalities.
| sometimeshuman wrote:
| Narcissism, maybe ? But given we have a surplus of adoptable
| children on this planet and not enough parents, I would argue
| most people have a natural child out of subconscious
| narcissism.
| jwond wrote:
| > most people have a natural child out of subconscious
| narcissism
|
| I would imagine the desire to have a child that is
| genetically yours is a consequence of evolution. Those
| whose genes instill within them the desire to have a child
| of their own would be more driven to actually reproduce and
| pass on those genes.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| I am not sure you have much experience with children. Telling a
| child that you know what their personality will be because they
| are a copy of _you_ and you would respond a certain way or do a
| certain thing is an absolute recipe for ensuring that the child
| will do the opposite of that thing. What you 're describing is
| a procedure for creating as divergent of a personality in your
| clone as genetics will allow.
| DC-3 wrote:
| Most likely, your clone-child would grow to hate you. Why not
| just do things the sane way and marry a nice woman and have a
| child with her?
| serf wrote:
| > Most likely, your clone-child would grow to hate you. Why
| not just do things the sane way and marry a nice woman and
| have a child with her?
|
| why is that 'most likely'?
|
| certainly very few people would say that so bluntly to anyone
| interested in natural child rearing or adoption -- why does
| this circumstance permit one to make such a blunt and likely
| ill-informed (we don't have a lot of experience with human
| clones..) statement?
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| Ironically, it that person thinks they would hate their
| "parents" if they had made them a clone, their clone would
| probably actually hate them!
| sometimeshuman wrote:
| Accepting your child may grow to hate you should be a pre-
| requisite for any aspiring parent. What we are doing is not
| "sane"[0]. Perhaps I am biased since I live in Southern
| California which is the Mecca for children of dysfunctional
| families.
|
| [0] Opening paragraph of Anna Karenina, Tolstoy
| daenz wrote:
| >If I were raised by my parent-clone I would have matured
| faster and been more skilled at playing baby-roulette with a
| natural child.
|
| This is leaning _heavily_ on the assumption that your
| personality is primarily a product of your genetics, and not of
| your life experiences. Outside of relating on physiology, what
| makes you think you would understand their reactions to unique
| life experiences at such a young age?
|
| Speaking as someone who had a dramatic personality shift from
| early trauma, I don't think that what you hypothesize is true.
| sometimeshuman wrote:
| "This is leaning heavily on the assumption that your
| personality is primarily a product of your genetics"
|
| Not really. If you allow that it is even 1% due to genetics,
| that better parenting compounds over generations. And there
| is a lot of evidence that it is much more than 1%. I too
| experienced numerous traumatic events by the time I was 12
| and was then prone towards neuroticism for decades after. I
| still submit I'd be a much better parent to a clone than
| someone who has half my dna.
| daenz wrote:
| It sounds like you're saying you'd consciously be a better
| parent to a clone _because_ you know it is a clone.
| dymk wrote:
| It sounds like they're saying that they would end up
| being a better parent because it's a clone, not because
| they _know_ it 's a clone.
| daenz wrote:
| I'm not trying to put them on trial but...
|
| The OP has no way of knowing if they would be a better
| parent, but yet they still very strongly _think_ that
| they would be a better parent to a child that has 100%
| similar dna than 50% similar dna. How can you know this
| unless you are biased towards the _idea_ of a clone? "I
| want a clone, more than anything" suggests there is bias.
| staticassertion wrote:
| I'd rather just have a clone for spare organs. I wonder how
| long you can increase human lifespan if you have a supply of
| blood and organs from a perfect match 20 year old donor.
| pepperonipizza wrote:
| I can't understand why countries like China aren't investing more
| in researching ectogenesis.
|
| It seems a good solution for the future of their population, the
| fertility rate will probably never go back to 2.
| Victerius wrote:
| "They are totally obedient, taking any order without question."
|
| Seriously, we need to loosen the regulations on cloning,
| including animal and, yes, human cloning. We are holding back
| innovation.
| rhacker wrote:
| why should we allow human cloning? at some point won't we just
| get evil clones coming out of russia to fight the next big war?
| We could even alter them just enough to call them sub-human,
| store them in cages and teach them to shoot machine guns.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Ape together strong
| wszfahwbwbaha wrote:
| junon wrote:
| That's not how discourse works here. Take that to reddit
| please.
| wszfahwbwbaha wrote:
| Why should someone be allowed to say truly deranged
| ramblings? But calling them out for it is not okay? Truly a
| vile culture and you should be ashamed for creating a safe
| space for people to spout eugenics.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Yes, and if we completely eliminated all other ethical
| restrictions on research, we'd innovate all the faster. Get
| those old Nazi scientists on the phone, there's slightly faster
| progress to be made!
| hnbad wrote:
| The thing most people don't get about the Nazi scientists is
| that Nazi science was actually pretty bad because it turns
| out being a Nazi makes you a worse scientist. The horrific
| "experiments" most people think of had no scientific value
| and amounted to little more than torture and abuse but even
| "normal" science was hampered by paranoia about the
| supposedly corrupting influence of Jewish scientists'
| research.
|
| The same is true about the Wunderwaffen btw. The "wonder
| weapons" were more of a lame marketing gimmick than actually
| feasible threats. They were mostly inconveniently oversized
| versions of existing weapons with no strategic use. Most of
| them never saw the light of day but wouldn't have skewed the
| outcome of the war, at least not in any direction favorable
| to the Nazis themselves.
| roschdal wrote:
| Why do we need this? Will USA use it to abuse and control the
| rest of the world?
| [deleted]
| marshray wrote:
| "Hanna hopes to use the technique to develop human synthetic
| embryos that can be a source of new organs and tissues for
| people who need them."
| nikhizzle wrote:
| Is this a basis for explaining immaculate conception?
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Immaculate Conception is a doctrine pertaining to the
| conception of Mary, not Jesus. /pedant
| marshray wrote:
| Mary was conceived immaculately too?
| nsxwolf wrote:
| No, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary having been
| conceived without being marked by original sin, not that
| she didn't have a biological father.
| daenz wrote:
| I always understood the word "conceived" or "conception"
| to apply to the person being born, not the parent. Is
| this not accurate?
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Yes, that's how it's being applied here, referring to
| Mary's own conception. It's a Catholic doctrine that
| essentially says God called the Mary constructor with a
| status override flag of "originalSin = false", so that
| she would go on to be a fitting vessel to carry Christ
| later.
| daenz wrote:
| Oh, I understand now, thanks. So in theory, if Mary had
| had multiple children, it would have really messed up the
| idea of the Trinity (3)
| ben_w wrote:
| It messes up _someone 's_ headcannon, that's for sure:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
| [deleted]
| evanb wrote:
| Various species exhibit parthenogenesis under (sometimes
| unusual) circumstances
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
|
| No evidence of human parthenogenesis ('virgin birth') is known.
|
| The immaculate conception was the conception of _Mary_, who was
| born without Original Sin (that's what makes it immaculate), in
| order to be clean enough to carry Jesus aand bear a virgin
| birth. The whole prior sentence should be sprinkled with
| 'allegedly' appropriately in every clause.
| csours wrote:
| Or self-cloning? Here's a thought to give you the shivering
| frights: What if a someone created a self-cloning version of
| themselves? Humanity could be replaced by a single clone.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbled_crayfish
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
| marshray wrote:
| Not in the land of the 2nd Amendment it won't.
| csours wrote:
| Haha, I was just kidding. I'm still alive and perfectly
| fine. I haven't been kidnapped by aaarrggghhhhhhh
| conductr wrote:
| Is this someone's name Agent Smith?
| numtel wrote:
| No, that's parthenogenesis. We can already do that with mice.
| jonas-w wrote:
| I read "House embryos" and was like, okay how far have we come?
| csours wrote:
| Treehouse of Horror embryo
| raarts wrote:
| I think we are about to find out why evolution dropped cloning as
| a viable mechanism for reproduction.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| The premise is false; cloning is all around you.
|
| However, bacteria have other ways of exchanging genetic
| material with each other, and more complex clonal organisms go
| extinct fairly quickly in geological time frames. But more will
| arise.
| biotinker wrote:
| Numerous organisms regularly reproduce via cloning, including
| most of the oldest and largest organisms, e.g. Pando. Bacteria,
| many plants, and some simpler animals primarily reproduce via
| cloning.
|
| Parthenogenesis is also a strategy employed as needed by fish,
| reptiles, and some birds.
|
| I'm not suggesting that cloning is superior, but to call it
| "not a viable mechanism" is a mischaracterization.
| raarts wrote:
| Maybe I should have added: 'for higher lifeforms'.
| biotinker wrote:
| How would you define "higher lifeforms" such that it does
| not include birds?
|
| Parthenogenesis has also been induced in mammals (mice) in
| a lab setting, though it has not been observed in the wild
| yet.
| numtel wrote:
| Wake me up when I can grow a mouse from my own body and see from
| its eyes.
|
| http://latenightsketches.com/detach-2.html
| korijn wrote:
| Stumbling upon this felt like a bit of the old internet's
| magic. Thanks.
| krrrh wrote:
| I love how the narrator pluralizes shaman as shamen. Subtle way
| to cast the unreliable narrator, but I'll probably start using
| this construction now.
| sabellito wrote:
| Excuse me, where is the rest of the book?
| zeristor wrote:
| So basically drones.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| That short story contains the highest density of mind-
| blowingness per unit text I've seen in a long time.
| numtel wrote:
| Thank you so much!
| upwardbound wrote:
| Such a cool story :)
|
| If you'd like this breadcrumb as something that could help
| make the world of the story feel like it could be our
| world, here's an interesting thing which is that Alan
| Turing thought that telepathy could be possible, and tried
| to account for this when designing the Turing Test.
|
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19728844/extrasensory-
| pe...
|
| If telepathy were to be possible as described in your
| story, you could explain it as mind-body dualism being real
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism and
| that the new animal born from the person temporarily shares
| a neural link with the person's brain, causing the sharing
| of one spirit, and that when the neural link is broken as
| the animal separates, the spirit is still anchored to both
| parts of the formerly-unified nervous system. The
| explanation for why this wouldn't happen during standard
| childbirth is that mother and child don't share a neural
| link, only a blood link.
|
| Here's another breadcrumb for this idea https://www.science
| daily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.h...
| numtel wrote:
| Your telepathy explanation is exactly where I was coming
| from. This is why I believe we'll be able to live forever
| without uploading our minds into computers.
| psychphysic wrote:
| How has Netflix not greenlit this already?
|
| It could revive black mirror.
| daenz wrote:
| Ethics aside, it would probably be good to conquer the population
| size problem. Then people can stop fighting about birth rates and
| immigration.
| [deleted]
| nashashmi wrote:
| There is no such thing as overpopulation problem. In urban
| planning we are always considering ways we can engineer cities
| to hold 100 million people to a billion people. In fact, that
| would be a great alternative to suburbanism and increase
| forestry with the extra land. So this whole random idea of
| overpopulation is alarmism over nothing.
|
| Granted, high population also means small 'mansions' and maybe
| THAT is their greatest worry.
| daenz wrote:
| >So this whole random idea of overpopulation is alarmism over
| nothing.
|
| Underpopulation is what I was referring to. Some countries
| have extremely low birth rates, and stabilizing them is
| important.
| shredprez wrote:
| I dunno, I can't imagine industrializing our domestic supply of
| infants would do anything but accelerate that particular arms
| race.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| The population size problem is not because people can't have
| enough children, it's because they _don 't want_ to have
| (enough) children.
|
| I don't see how cloning helps with that.
| daenz wrote:
| Regardless of the source of the problem, the end result is
| the same: not enough people. Cloning treats that symptom even
| if it doesn't address the source. But yes, you're left with a
| new problem: who will raise these new people? If it came down
| to it, the state. Or the state would assign children to
| couples.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Couples are unlikely to accept. So the only option would be
| for the state to raise them... I think I saw some sci fi
| movie where the galactic republic solved a problem with
| hostile robots this way..
| daenz wrote:
| I was thinking more along the lines of Vivarium (very
| mild spoilers, sorry!), but yes.
| klyrs wrote:
| If the clones are wards of the state, then an
| industrialized/automated approach to child-rearing becomes
| plausible. Yes, this is dystopian. But if we're going to do
| it, we should use the Montessori model, with each cohort
| helping raise the next.
| irrational wrote:
| What population size problem? Birth rates have plummeted in all
| developed countries. As more countries become developed the
| same thing will happen. The population size problem is already
| solved - birth control, freedom for women, middle class
| lifestyles, etc.
| nabakin wrote:
| Population size isn't much of a concern right now so idk what
| OP is talking about, but I doubt population size is solved.
| Natural selection, in absence of premature death, selects for
| those that give birth the most. So while at the moment, we
| are in a sort of lull, eventually the people who have a low
| birth rate, will be selected out of the population. The only
| way this doesn't happen is with another force acting in the
| opposite direction. For example, maybe whatever is causing
| the birth rate decline now, actually counters the incentives
| of natural selection over hundreds or thousands of years, or
| the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth
| such that premature death becomes common once again.
| daenz wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32589499
| ben_w wrote:
| > Then people can stop fighting about birth rates and
| immigration.
|
| If human cloning ever becomes accepted, I suspect racism will
| end up promoting an even smaller gene pool than it already
| does, with anyone who _isn 't_ a clone of Dear Leader And His
| Chosen Ones forming the out-group.
|
| Such a system would still hate immigration.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-26 23:01 UTC)