|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:12 am
 |
|
|
|
Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel You assume clones are tank-born. The most reliable and efficient form of cloning involves in-vitro fertilization. To date but that's with our current limited knowledge and idiots preventing progress. Ehhh... I dunno. In vitro is certainly easier and more reliable than any incubation tank we have now, and it probably will be for a good long time. But we're talking mass production. I think we'll take 9/10 failing over having to keep all the surrogate mothers alive as well in a tank for pregnancy period, which wastes more resources. We'll get it down pact into a beautifully exact process eventually, until then we flush the rejects like fish. Who said anything about keeping the wimmins in a tank? Nah, free-range is the way to go. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:22 am
|
|
|
 |
magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel You assume clones are tank-born. The most reliable and efficient form of cloning involves in-vitro fertilization. To date but that's with our current limited knowledge and idiots preventing progress. Ehhh... I dunno. In vitro is certainly easier and more reliable than any incubation tank we have now, and it probably will be for a good long time. But we're talking mass production. I think we'll take 9/10 failing over having to keep all the surrogate mothers alive as well in a tank for pregnancy period, which wastes more resources. We'll get it down pact into a beautifully exact process eventually, until then we flush the rejects like fish. Who said anything about keeping the wimmins in a tank? Nah, free-range is the way to go. We're making perfect clones we can't let dem wimmins use their new found weight to amateur sumo for pork chops. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:28 am
|
|
|
|
Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel Ehhh... I dunno. In vitro is certainly easier and more reliable than any incubation tank we have now, and it probably will be for a good long time. But we're talking mass production. I think we'll take 9/10 failing over having to keep all the surrogate mothers alive as well in a tank for pregnancy period, which wastes more resources. We'll get it down pact into a beautifully exact process eventually, until then we flush the rejects like fish. Who said anything about keeping the wimmins in a tank? Nah, free-range is the way to go. We're making perfect clones we can't let dem wimmins use their new found weight to amateur sumo for pork chops. You know, the chance of a baby dying before it's born is something along the lines of a quarter of a percent, right? That's probably far better than tank birth. Also, if your tank-born goes wrong it's your fault, but if you get your walking uterus to sign the right papers you could probably blame it on her if something catastrophic goes wrong and get de monies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:46 am
|
|
|
|
black_wing_angel magmayoshi black_wing_angel AN INTERESTING QUESTION! If you have sex with your clone, is that technically masturbation? No but it does lead to a question pertaining to your sexuality if you claim to be straight. Unless you have the clone engineered to be the opposite sex. Then it's probably more like incest, though, huh?
I guess since that one small DNA change no longer makes it your genetic duplicate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 2:15 am
|
|
|
|
magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel Ehhh... I dunno. In vitro is certainly easier and more reliable than any incubation tank we have now, and it probably will be for a good long time. But we're talking mass production. I think we'll take 9/10 failing over having to keep all the surrogate mothers alive as well in a tank for pregnancy period, which wastes more resources. We'll get it down pact into a beautifully exact process eventually, until then we flush the rejects like fish. Who said anything about keeping the wimmins in a tank? Nah, free-range is the way to go. We're making perfect clones we can't let dem wimmins use their new found weight to amateur sumo for pork chops. You know, the chance of a baby dying before it's born is something along the lines of a quarter of a percent, right? That's probably far better than tank birth. Also, if your tank-born goes wrong it's your fault, but if you get your walking uterus to sign the right papers you could probably blame it on her if something catastrophic goes wrong and get de monies. You know the odds of someone wanting to deal with so many mothers in a mass production clone making deal? And dealing with all the surrogates that say no to giving back the clones? All the paper work with all the mothers? You'd either need to test tube the mothers or test tube the clones. Tank born goes wrong you flush it and shut up like anything else in science. As long as you don't show the public and make soylent green with the rest, everything's cool and you make de monies.
Paperwork is paperwork, it just happens. You've got to deal with it.
Tank born goes wrong and you lose all the money you put into it and you have to do an autopsy and s**t to figure out WHY it went wrong. IVF baby goes wrong and the woman pays YOU for breach of contract. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 2:16 am
|
|
|
|
magmayoshi black_wing_angel magmayoshi black_wing_angel AN INTERESTING QUESTION! If you have sex with your clone, is that technically masturbation? No but it does lead to a question pertaining to your sexuality if you claim to be straight. Unless you have the clone engineered to be the opposite sex. Then it's probably more like incest, though, huh? I guess since that one small DNA change no longer makes it your genetic duplicate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 2:46 am
|
|
|
|
Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel Who said anything about keeping the wimmins in a tank? Nah, free-range is the way to go. We're making perfect clones we can't let dem wimmins use their new found weight to amateur sumo for pork chops. You know, the chance of a baby dying before it's born is something along the lines of a quarter of a percent, right? That's probably far better than tank birth. Also, if your tank-born goes wrong it's your fault, but if you get your walking uterus to sign the right papers you could probably blame it on her if something catastrophic goes wrong and get de monies. You know the odds of someone wanting to deal with so many mothers in a mass production clone making deal? And dealing with all the surrogates that say no to giving back the clones? All the paper work with all the mothers? You'd either need to test tube the mothers or test tube the clones. Tank born goes wrong you flush it and shut up like anything else in science. As long as you don't show the public and make soylent green with the rest, everything's cool and you make de monies. Just look at modern drug testing. They pay you a couple thousand bucks, you sign a piece of paper, and that's it. You don't want to give the kid back? Tough s**t. A, he's OUR kid, and B, you signed the waiver. Paperwork is paperwork, it just happens. You've got to deal with it. Tank born goes wrong and you lose all the money you put into it and you have to do an autopsy and s**t to figure out WHY it went wrong. IVF baby goes wrong and the woman pays YOU for breach of contract.
The scenario seems to be along the lines of a dystopian future with advanced technology capable of "Hey we need more of model Bob, get pumping them out and I'll expect 50 by Thursday." anyways confused
And just because we fail at it now, doesn't mean we can't figure out how to make a synthetic uterus for test tube clones tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 2:59 am
|
|
|
|
Fresnel magmayoshi black_wing_angel magmayoshi black_wing_angel AN INTERESTING QUESTION! If you have sex with your clone, is that technically masturbation? No but it does lead to a question pertaining to your sexuality if you claim to be straight. Unless you have the clone engineered to be the opposite sex. Then it's probably more like incest, though, huh? I guess since that one small DNA change no longer makes it your genetic duplicate. And if you're naturally a hermaphrodite? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 3:12 am
|
|
|
|
magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi black_wing_angel magmayoshi black_wing_angel AN INTERESTING QUESTION! If you have sex with your clone, is that technically masturbation? No but it does lead to a question pertaining to your sexuality if you claim to be straight. Unless you have the clone engineered to be the opposite sex. Then it's probably more like incest, though, huh? I guess since that one small DNA change no longer makes it your genetic duplicate. And if you're naturally a hermaphrodite? Well the opposite of that would be having no sexual organs really, therefore sex couldn't really happen, the clone would just supervise as you ******** yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 3:12 am
|
|
|
|
magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi black_wing_angel magmayoshi black_wing_angel AN INTERESTING QUESTION! If you have sex with your clone, is that technically masturbation? No but it does lead to a question pertaining to your sexuality if you claim to be straight. Unless you have the clone engineered to be the opposite sex. Then it's probably more like incest, though, huh? can clones get pregnant/reproduce? would it lead to a spate of retired married people cloning their partners so they could have sex with them in their twenties all over again? would it be legal to have sex with your clone? would it be legal to have sex with anyone's clone? are the clones allowed to have sex with each other? i think the bottom line is that these clones would have to have frontal lobe labotomies at birth, otherwise they will be nothing but trouble... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 3:13 am
|
|
|
|
magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel Who said anything about keeping the wimmins in a tank? Nah, free-range is the way to go. We're making perfect clones we can't let dem wimmins use their new found weight to amateur sumo for pork chops. You know, the chance of a baby dying before it's born is something along the lines of a quarter of a percent, right? That's probably far better than tank birth. Also, if your tank-born goes wrong it's your fault, but if you get your walking uterus to sign the right papers you could probably blame it on her if something catastrophic goes wrong and get de monies. You know the odds of someone wanting to deal with so many mothers in a mass production clone making deal? And dealing with all the surrogates that say no to giving back the clones? All the paper work with all the mothers? You'd either need to test tube the mothers or test tube the clones. Tank born goes wrong you flush it and shut up like anything else in science. As long as you don't show the public and make soylent green with the rest, everything's cool and you make de monies. Just look at modern drug testing. They pay you a couple thousand bucks, you sign a piece of paper, and that's it. You don't want to give the kid back? Tough s**t. A, he's OUR kid, and B, you signed the waiver. Paperwork is paperwork, it just happens. You've got to deal with it. Tank born goes wrong and you lose all the money you put into it and you have to do an autopsy and s**t to figure out WHY it went wrong. IVF baby goes wrong and the woman pays YOU for breach of contract. Can we settle with tank mothers then, to get the controlled environment with doing it in vitro for perfect results without the hassle? The scenario seems to be along the lines of a dystopian future with advanced technology capable of "Hey we need more of model Bob, get pumping them out and I'll expect 50 by Thursday." anyways confused And just because we fail at it now, doesn't mean we can't figure out how to make a synthetic uterus for test tube clones tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 3:16 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 3:19 am
|
|
|
|
Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel magmayoshi Fresnel You know, the chance of a baby dying before it's born is something along the lines of a quarter of a percent, right? That's probably far better than tank birth. Also, if your tank-born goes wrong it's your fault, but if you get your walking uterus to sign the right papers you could probably blame it on her if something catastrophic goes wrong and get de monies. You know the odds of someone wanting to deal with so many mothers in a mass production clone making deal? And dealing with all the surrogates that say no to giving back the clones? All the paper work with all the mothers? You'd either need to test tube the mothers or test tube the clones. Tank born goes wrong you flush it and shut up like anything else in science. As long as you don't show the public and make soylent green with the rest, everything's cool and you make de monies. Just look at modern drug testing. They pay you a couple thousand bucks, you sign a piece of paper, and that's it. You don't want to give the kid back? Tough s**t. A, he's OUR kid, and B, you signed the waiver. Paperwork is paperwork, it just happens. You've got to deal with it. Tank born goes wrong and you lose all the money you put into it and you have to do an autopsy and s**t to figure out WHY it went wrong. IVF baby goes wrong and the woman pays YOU for breach of contract. Can we settle with tank mothers then, to get the controlled environment with doing it in vitro for perfect results without the hassle? The scenario seems to be along the lines of a dystopian future with advanced technology capable of "Hey we need more of model Bob, get pumping them out and I'll expect 50 by Thursday." anyways confused And just because we fail at it now, doesn't mean we can't figure out how to make a synthetic uterus for test tube clones tomorrow. Ehh... I don't buy into the whole accelerated growth thing. Maybe it could be done, but you can't make it magically slow down at age X.
Accelerated aging is possible but growth isn't in a healthy way currently. They aren't that realistic but a test tube clone I could see if part of it was a synthetic uterus to grow it till it's a baby. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
