Support the IEET

The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal

Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view

Ayesha Khanna interviewed by NY Times

David Brin’s EXISTENCE: Official Trailer

How to Talk to an Alien

Religion, Witch Hunts, Homophobia and Human Rights in Africa

At-Home HIV Test Raises Ethical Questions

‪Human Trafficking of Sex Workers‬

Sex Work – Demeaning Practice or Basic Human Right?

Yes, I Am a Believer

Bostrom & Cascio @ Astana Economic Forum

We Are Borg

Manna: Two Visions of Humanity’s Future
Author

by Marshall Brain

The Astrobiological Landscape: Philosophical Foundations of the Study of Cosmic Life
by Milan M. Ćirković

Smart Mice, Not-So-Smart People: An Interesting and Amusing Guide to Bioethics
by Arthur Caplan

From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form
by Martine Rothblatt

Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List

Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

IEET > Life

Print • Email • permalink • (1) Comments • (1495) Hits •

subscribe •

•

•

•

•

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 • (1) Comments • (1496) Hits •

subscribe •

•

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