edder
New member
the kittez can has RFID? lulz...
SKoreans clone cats that glow in the dark: officials
- Thread starter hecklerkoch
- Start date
the kittez can has RFID? lulz...
AEnimic
New member
just imagine one night,you walk into your dark living room and you see something glowing in the distance and purring and meow-ing. I'll be scared shitless.
I still don't want a cat that glows in the dark! What's the bloody use? bring it for campfire walks in the forests?
I know it's for research...but at least make a cat that talks. I love Doraemon. At least that's a leap for science...
vernplum
New member
Yes. I'm a selfish bastard who wants to live as long as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_over_human_history
Average life expectancy before the health transition of the modern era is thought to have varied between about 20 years and 35 years. It is important to note that most people who quote pre-modern life expectancies do so while calculating infant mortality into the mix. Also, the life expectancy for women was lower throughout history than it was for men; because, until modern medicine, one in four women died in childbirth. If you survived childhood you could expect to live into your old age in any time throughout history. It has been suggested that life expectancy fell with the introduction of plant and animal domestication because of:
higher infection rates caused by the increase in human settlement size and density,
poorer nutrition due to low dietary variety.[1]
Advances in sanitation, nutrition, and medical knowledge made possible incredible changes in life expectancy in the United States and throughout the world, providing subjects for study as well as the need to study them. In the United States, only 50 percent of children born in 1900 could reasonably hope to reach the age of 50; life expectancy today is approximately 77 years of age. But note that there is a big discrepancy between males and females, 73.6 years for men and 79.4 years for women. Life expectancy is lower for African Americans; 67.2 years for men and 74.7 years for women (Hoyert, Kochanek, and Murphy, 1999).
vernplum
New member
kerplunk182
New member
i hate cats (cause one almost scratched my dog) but doing that to a cat is just not human. Animal torture sucks. Urgh.
hecklerkoch
New member
Aiyah, I mean we do not know for sure that these animals were tortured in any way right...
These cats were a result of reproductive cloning and I can't imagine an animal having had to be tortured in any way to be cloned this way.
The glow in the dark thing (and ONLY under UV light and NOT in total darkness) was supposed to be an unintentional side effect mah. These cats don't even feel pain or are hurt in any way if they glow glow glow.
If you talk about the mortality of these cloned animals, I think the chances of them dying stillborn or whatever are almost the same with animals and humans being born in natural conditions and conventional means. People still do have miscarriages for some reason, babies do not survive for a myriad of reasons too.
Anyway, I hope my posting of this thread didn't come across as an act of condonement to the cloning of animals in general lah. Just found it interesting and wanted to share.
So, I apologise if it came across as me not being sensitive enough to animal lovers here.
My family has had lots of cats (and family of cats) before and we all loved having animals in our home. Just that now we can't have it because there's a newborn baby and a two year old in the house and we are kind of worried if a cat goes postal on the kids and scratch scratch scratch.
Peace, over and out!
:mrgreen:
I quote from somewhere that in a long enough time line, our probability of survival would drop to zero. But risks taken messing with any creature's DNA , whether calculated or not, are still risks. Man's ability to think MAY be our only evolutionary mechanism that has helped us survive through the times. But when push comes to shove, at the rate that Man is altering our surroundings recklessly, and ourselves for that matter, it might as well inevitably lead to the accelerating of that time line to zero.
The more we try to do something about it, the worse it gets. Look at our increasing reliance on antibiotics. Increase in life expectancy leads to an increase in population albeit an ageing one. That leads to increase in dependency ratio which leads to decline in economy and vicious cycle continues. As it is, people in less developed has been dying from starvation and things are bound to get worse as we continue to horde food from our NTUC and Walmart. And global warming, like you mentioned. Naysayers lament that it's a natural cycle of the earth. But are we actually doing anything to leave the natural cycle be? No, we continue to emit carbon more than how much donuts Malmsteen eats. And that, my friends, is quite alot. Think about it. Everything we're doing now is going against the running of nature and whether WE like it or not, things are bound to get worse. The least we could do is do nothing to aggravate the situation further. Glowing cats is only the tip of the iceberg.
The more we try to do something about it, the worse it gets. Look at our increasing reliance on antibiotics. Increase in life expectancy leads to an increase in population albeit an ageing one. That leads to increase in dependency ratio which leads to decline in economy and vicious cycle continues. As it is, people in less developed has been dying from starvation and things are bound to get worse as we continue to horde food from our NTUC and Walmart. And global warming, like you mentioned. Naysayers lament that it's a natural cycle of the earth. But are we actually doing anything to leave the natural cycle be? No, we continue to emit carbon more than how much donuts Malmsteen eats. And that, my friends, is quite alot. Think about it. Everything we're doing now is going against the running of nature and whether WE like it or not, things are bound to get worse. The least we could do is do nothing to aggravate the situation further. Glowing cats is only the tip of the iceberg.
Last edited:
hecklerkoch
New member
Wahaha!! You are right!
Guess I was too captivated by the glowing cats that I didn't even read through the article properly.
Gosh!
Guess I was too captivated by the glowing cats that I didn't even read through the article properly.
Gosh!
gutturalpiss
New member
wow..i'd like that. a glow in the dark me.
blueprintstudios
New member
I'd like to have a "certain part" of me to glow in the dark too. heh. j/k
What's wrong with testing various experimental drugs or procedures on animals? As unethical as it may seem or sound, its a price that can be considered extremely low when we look at it from a macro view point.
Would you rather have procedures and drugs tested on animals, before testing on live human test subjects, or skip the whole animal stage and jump to live human subjects? Before you make a comment like "Of course I'll support skipping the animal stage!", just imagine if you, or any of your siblings/parents/relatives are the human subjects, and there's no guarantee that the drugs or procedures will work, or are 100% safe. Would you be willing to take this risk and give them the green light?
Furthermore, there's no evidence in the passage that suggested any form of animal cruelty, or pain to the two cats involved. The only procedure involved was the manipulation of the animal's gene, which was most probably done after a sample was taken from the original test subject (don't quote me, i'm not a lifescience student)
For those who feel so strongly about animal rights and all that jazz,
"The ability to produce cloned cats with the manipulated genes is significant as it could be used for developing treatments for genetic diseases and for reproducing model (cloned) animals suffering from the same diseases as humans," it added."
I guess the scientists shouldn't apply any beneficial procedure on animals suffering from various genetic diseases as that would be tantamount to playing God... since God made animals the "weaker species" (as mentioned in one of the posts), and we "shouldn't play God", then we probably shouldn't provide such unethical treatment for animals, and just apply it solely on humans.
Would you rather have procedures and drugs tested on animals, before testing on live human test subjects, or skip the whole animal stage and jump to live human subjects? Before you make a comment like "Of course I'll support skipping the animal stage!", just imagine if you, or any of your siblings/parents/relatives are the human subjects, and there's no guarantee that the drugs or procedures will work, or are 100% safe. Would you be willing to take this risk and give them the green light?
Furthermore, there's no evidence in the passage that suggested any form of animal cruelty, or pain to the two cats involved. The only procedure involved was the manipulation of the animal's gene, which was most probably done after a sample was taken from the original test subject (don't quote me, i'm not a lifescience student)
For those who feel so strongly about animal rights and all that jazz,
"The ability to produce cloned cats with the manipulated genes is significant as it could be used for developing treatments for genetic diseases and for reproducing model (cloned) animals suffering from the same diseases as humans," it added."
I guess the scientists shouldn't apply any beneficial procedure on animals suffering from various genetic diseases as that would be tantamount to playing God... since God made animals the "weaker species" (as mentioned in one of the posts), and we "shouldn't play God", then we probably shouldn't provide such unethical treatment for animals, and just apply it solely on humans.
theunknown
New member
that sound soooo wrong, deathism..hahahah
yeah it makes me curious. if they really make a new body out of a cell [or cells/dna/whatever], is there a soul in it. the emotions, life, mind. wooo stop it, me!
im straying away from religion beliefs. hahahah.
yeah i agree it is against the force of nature. imagine they can clone anything and everything...like make a new heart, lungs, liver etc. then in the far future, it becomes so easy to do that it becomes cheap. then they mass produce internal organs..then new technology would make them 'one size fits all'. then 7-11 would sell hearts 3 for $10.
sungei road will sell a lung for $2.lelong lelong ,lelong!!! people would buy and buy and buy!! then everyone becomes invicible and live forever!!!!!!!
and oh cloning human in mass production. then sumore got custom made ones...
wooo can order online, ''i want jessica alba clone!''
MUAHAHAHAHAH. okay too much stress must let it out. siaala what am i talking??
yeah it makes me curious. if they really make a new body out of a cell [or cells/dna/whatever], is there a soul in it. the emotions, life, mind. wooo stop it, me!
im straying away from religion beliefs. hahahah.
yeah i agree it is against the force of nature. imagine they can clone anything and everything...like make a new heart, lungs, liver etc. then in the far future, it becomes so easy to do that it becomes cheap. then they mass produce internal organs..then new technology would make them 'one size fits all'. then 7-11 would sell hearts 3 for $10.
sungei road will sell a lung for $2.lelong lelong ,lelong!!! people would buy and buy and buy!! then everyone becomes invicible and live forever!!!!!!!
and oh cloning human in mass production. then sumore got custom made ones...
wooo can order online, ''i want jessica alba clone!''
MUAHAHAHAHAH. okay too much stress must let it out. siaala what am i talking??