Steven Earl Salmony on 'Making the Visible Invisible' (2008 09 06)

Magne Karlsen on 'The Hate Party' (2008 09 06)

Lori on 'The Hate Party' (2008 09 05)

Josh on 'Sorry ladies, the male birth control pill is not about you' (2008 09 04)

Will on 'Poll: Who will the next US President be? (Obama)' (2008 09 04)

Percent of 'working-age' adults employed in 2050 in Europe and N. America ( surveys)

Oscar: Need a manufacturer for my nutritional supplements range of products!!! (2)

Stuart Ballard: Empowerment enhances cognition (1)

extropian.pharmer: 10- Implementing the Longevity Dividend- Methusalah or Bust (2)

extropian.pharmer: 09-Healthy Inter-generational Bonding -pt1&2; (15)

Jimmy_Adams: Intergenerational Behaviours (1)

"We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future."
George Bernard Shaw

Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

IEET > Life

Print • Email • permalink • Discuss in Forums •

Gregory Stock v. Dan Callahan on Healthy Life Extension

Gregory Stock

Edmonton Aging Symposium

Posted: Apr 7, 2007

Debate between Gregory Stock and Daniel Callahan, which was moderated by Aubrey de Grey, at the Edmonton Aging Symposium which took place March 30-31, 2007.

Listen/View

Print • Email • permalink • Discuss in Forums • Send to: ¡

COMMENTS

Soren David Jensen • University of Oregon • May 26, 2008

Professor Stock, Isn't the stance against research regarding therapeutic cloning hypocritical? The accusations against cloning include: 1. Cloning involves the destruction of a human embryo. 2. Cloning using animal embryos could produce maladies in their subjects (cells in therapeutic). 3. It could cause temptations for the investigation of reproductive cloning. However, as you said, these arguments aren't viable because of a third factor, and the perspective that this third factor incites. This third factor is the inevitability of cloning research in foreign countries. Because of this third factor, the deductions of these prior arguments are reversed. If it is true that cloning inflicts unethical infringements upon its subjects, then an lack of involvement in the progression of cloning technology would result in a slower rate of eradication of imperfected, immoral techniques. Cloning is inevitable is foreign countries, regardless of US legislation, and therefore remaining evasive of cloning research is hypocritical considering that preventing the situation is not an option, and that the only way that the previous arguments now apply is in the activity of making cloning safer. I don't know how the US would go about arranging such a project, but the sacrifice of releasing all scientific information to the public would be the only way (that comes to mind) that would prevent others from engaging in risky cloning research after the technical answers are found. Could you PLEASE argue? I'm so interested, and I could possibly pursue this area of science. Some inspiration would help with morale. Soren Jensen, Freshman: University of Oregon

YOUR COMMENT

Next entry: The Future Is For Everyone (Or At Least, It Should Be)

Previous entry: Estimating Your Future's Options in a Long-Lived World