3 ms·

It is literally the same thing as the abortion issue. You'd merely be aborting a cerebrum, to bring about brain-death before brain-life can begin. If abortion i

It is literally the same thing as the abortion issue. You'd merely be aborting a cerebrum, to bring about brain-death before brain-life can begin. If abortion isn't killing, then neither is this. If you want to support abortion but oppose this, then you need to say that a fetus is alive -- is a person with some rights -- but that those rights are superseded by a woman's absolute bodily autonomy. This would be a stronger position: Rather than saying that fetuses aren't alive, you'd be saying that women have a right to kill in certain circumstances. We don't even need mechanical wombs to bring these clones to term. A woman could gestate her own braindead clone to provide organs for herself later in life, or a man could work with a female partner or paid surrogate. The only missing technology is that needed to allow the braindead body to develop from a baby into an adult. We already have life support technologies that seem applicable, but they've never been applied in this way. Possibly certain hormone injections would also be needed, to transition through puberty. This is all so logically clear, and the stakes so high -- immortality? -- that I'm a little surprised nobody has been ruthless enough to attempt it yet. There used to be Forbidden Cities with water-clocks to track the ovulation of concubines. The ancients could ruthlessly apply logic. Moderns seem not to. I guess it's about avoiding retaliation.

carmen_sandiego 6y ago
I'm not sure it's quite immortality but yes, the stakes are pretty high. It seems likely that you'd not go public if you did this, though, so it's possible someone has already tried. There are probably people ruthless enough and resourced enough that they might just grow a perfectly normal (i.e. full brain development) human and harvest them anyway. If you're rich through (say) organized crime already, what's the difference when it's your life at stake? Ostensibly the only issues for those people are lead time (they'd need to plan ahead of critical illness) and sustaining a minor conspiracy (paying off the medical team and surrogate, managing trust, or just cleaning up loose ends).
- recuter 6y ago
  You could just bribe yourself unto an organ donors list in some country. This isn't anywhere close to immortality it just conceivably makes the line shorter for some surgeries.
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    We’re talking about growing a clone of yourself, so significantly better outcomes than a random donor.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
  > just grow a perfectly normal (i.e. full brain development) human and harvest them anyway. If you're rich through (say) organized crime already, what's the difference when it's your life at stake? True. If you throw ethics out the window and accept murder, then "immortality" may be possible with today's technology. Probably you run into problems with mutations eventually, but you could throw more bodies at the problem and use a selection process. You'd think someone would be attempting this in mice.
Tossitto 6y ago
I've got to wonder about the level of experimentation it takes to get to the point where you can actually effectively create a genuinely braindead, but otherwise wholly functional human unit. From a genetics standpoint, I believe it's a fractaline system, meaning recursive elements, which is (and quite probably wrongly) to say that removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components. Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results? We don't understand consciousness to the degree this demands for a "truly ethical" criterion anyways; and that may be a moot point, as it may be beyond comprehension. And that's discounting a lot of other things. Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use? What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them? For major endocrine organs, what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old? And so on...
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
  > From a genetics standpoint, I believe [...] removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components. I wasn't suggesting that gene editing be used to prevent a cerebrum from developing, but merely that an in-utero surgical procedure be used to destroy the cerebrum at some early stage of development. That seems doable. (This whole thing does, however, disturb me.) > Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results? That's why I was speculating that the external supply of certain hormones would be required, particularly to get through puberty. > Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use? Yeah, also a good question. I was assuming that the technique I was proposing, that of using a whole body -- as different from growing organs in-vitro -- would obviate the worst problems. (There are still concerns about making sure the body doesn't atrophy, but I think something could be worked out. You can even imagine (again disturbingly) some serious exercise regimen, administered via electrostimulation of the muscles. Or occasional stress to the pulmonary system by injecting adrenaline.) But in-vitro growth of isolated organs might also be possible. That would immediately skip the worst ethical issues, but it requires more discoveries than the full-body method. We're already getting there for simple organs, though it requires a donor organ to be used as a scaffolding, which is a problem. > What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them? There must be case studies about organ transplants between twins? Presumably immunosuppressants were not needed? > what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old? What little I've seen, from pop-science releases about experiments with mice, is that some rejuvenation tends to come from that sort of thing.

carmen_sandiego 6y ago

I'm not sure it's quite immortality but yes, the stakes are pretty high. It seems likely that you'd not go public if you did this, though, so it's possible someone has already tried. There are probably people ruthless enough and resourced enough that they might just grow a perfectly normal (i.e. full brain development) human and harvest them anyway. If you're rich through (say) organized crime already, what's the difference when it's your life at stake? Ostensibly the only issues for those people are lead time (they'd need to plan ahead of critical illness) and sustaining a minor conspiracy (paying off the medical team and surrogate, managing trust, or just cleaning up loose ends).

recuter 6y ago
You could just bribe yourself unto an organ donors list in some country. This isn't anywhere close to immortality it just conceivably makes the line shorter for some surgeries.
- carmen_sandiego 6y ago
  We’re talking about growing a clone of yourself, so significantly better outcomes than a random donor.
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
> just grow a perfectly normal (i.e. full brain development) human and harvest them anyway. If you're rich through (say) organized crime already, what's the difference when it's your life at stake? True. If you throw ethics out the window and accept murder, then "immortality" may be possible with today's technology. Probably you run into problems with mutations eventually, but you could throw more bodies at the problem and use a selection process. You'd think someone would be attempting this in mice.

Tossitto 6y ago

I've got to wonder about the level of experimentation it takes to get to the point where you can actually effectively create a genuinely braindead, but otherwise wholly functional human unit. From a genetics standpoint, I believe it's a fractaline system, meaning recursive elements, which is (and quite probably wrongly) to say that removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components. Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results? We don't understand consciousness to the degree this demands for a "truly ethical" criterion anyways; and that may be a moot point, as it may be beyond comprehension. And that's discounting a lot of other things. Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use? What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them? For major endocrine organs, what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old? And so on...

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
> From a genetics standpoint, I believe [...] removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components. I wasn't suggesting that gene editing be used to prevent a cerebrum from developing, but merely that an in-utero surgical procedure be used to destroy the cerebrum at some early stage of development. That seems doable. (This whole thing does, however, disturb me.) > Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results? That's why I was speculating that the external supply of certain hormones would be required, particularly to get through puberty. > Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use? Yeah, also a good question. I was assuming that the technique I was proposing, that of using a whole body -- as different from growing organs in-vitro -- would obviate the worst problems. (There are still concerns about making sure the body doesn't atrophy, but I think something could be worked out. You can even imagine (again disturbingly) some serious exercise regimen, administered via electrostimulation of the muscles. Or occasional stress to the pulmonary system by injecting adrenaline.) But in-vitro growth of isolated organs might also be possible. That would immediately skip the worst ethical issues, but it requires more discoveries than the full-body method. We're already getting there for simple organs, though it requires a donor organ to be used as a scaffolding, which is a problem. > What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them? There must be case studies about organ transplants between twins? Presumably immunosuppressants were not needed? > what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old? What little I've seen, from pop-science releases about experiments with mice, is that some rejuvenation tends to come from that sort of thing.