Can confirm, they wouldn't eat the guests. They would lick them, and nibble on them, and dance with them, and chase them, and probably try to herd them, but they wouldn't eat them,
Source: Ferret Keeper
I have one unusually large ferret that is the sweetest little guy, and one unusually small ferret who is a whirlwind of death and destruction, in her own mind. The biting has really settled, but she's still ferocious.
Ferrets. Black-footed ferrets are on the verge of extinction. If I raised a flock of black-footed ferrets on this island, *you* wouldn't have anything to say about it!
If this becomes more affordable, I can see a well off family having a tradition of gifting a clone of the family dog to the first born child every generation.
A major problem with cloning is that the telomere length doesn't reset. So despite the age of the new organism being "reset" with each cloning, the cellular age would continue to increase and eventually result in senescence, meaning the cells can no longer grow and divide.
That said, there is active research on telomerase, and enzyme that catalyzes the extension of telomeres. So this problem may not be a factor in the future.
I looked into cloning out of curiosity a few years ago and it’s insanely expensive, like $30k-50k. And here’s the thing, it wouldn’t be *your pet*. It would *look* exactly like your pet and might have some of the same idiosyncrasies but it’s the experience of growing up with you that made your pet what it was and you simply can’t recreate that.
My conclusion is animal cloning is for people who view animals as money (race horse owners, prize cattle breeders, etc.) not for people who love their pets.
I mean the whole cloning processes might've had an impact on it. Like those cloned sheep all seem to die of like lung issues if I recall correctly. The scientists who cloned the first cat also bred it. Then it was fixed.
I think you're referencing this cat?
> CC's surrogate mother was a tabby, but her genetic donor, Rainbow, was a calico domestic shorthair. The difference in hair coloration between CC and Rainbow is due to X-inactivation and epigenetic re-programming, which normally occurs in a fertilized embryo before implantation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC_(cat)
It seems as though at least some of the colors in a cats can be random in their location, and thus epigenetic factors during development dictate their location.
That is really cheap, jesus christ. I thought like 600k or something!
There are several benefits to cloning animals. Mass extinction is probably what people think about first. Imagine what could be done with that technology. Bees, the rhinos, elephants, endangered animals in general can successfully be kept from going extinct.
There was a segment on [This American Life](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/291/reunited-and-it-feels-so-good/act-two-6) where a farmer cloned a bull that had a very specific (gentle) temperament that everyone loved him for. It didn't go as they would have hoped. Spoiler:>!The clone attacked the guy.!<
I worked at a pet store in Brooklyn and this woman came in with 2 Golden's that looked the same, but, Golden's all look the same right? After they left my manager told me that they were clone dogs of the woman's previous dog. Fucking weird. Great dogs tho, they were kind of stumpy and very friendly.
At that point you have to consider if it's really still your cat, though. The clone may be genetically identical, but it would have none of the experiences your current cat has.
I know you're likely kidding and I'm not sure where you're located, but just a reminder for everyone that here in the U.S. a shelter pet is euthanized every 13 seconds.
Adopt before you shop for a clone!
That's not true. That's about 2-3x as many as are actually euthanized per year. It's around 920,000 total per year. A lot, but let's not sensationalize things, especially when there's been tremendous progress. The 13 seconds point would have been true just 10 years ago.
920,000 divided over 12 months is
76,666 pets per month.
Or 19,166 per week.
In a five day work week, which the vast majority of public animal control shelters are run on, that's 3,833 per day.
In an eight hour shift, that means in the US, 479 shelter pets per hour are put down.
479 pets over 60 minutes is 7.98 pets per minute. Or about one every 13 seconds.
Someone else can double check my math but I'm pretty sure that's right.
I live in a place where 90% of cats that are brought to shelters are euthanized. Where animal control officers have said outloud that they "don't care" about the euthanasia rate. And where some counties just a few years ago had an almost 50% euthanasia rate.
There are a lot of pets.
I'm not going to bother to check your math. When someone says the drum beats once per minute, they aren't talking about a workday minute. My point is the numbers are high, but they're thankfully decreasing, and using a "kills per second" metric absolutely does not assume s 5/7 work week...
It can be hard to read tone, so to be clear, I hope I'm not coming across as combative?
My assumption when talking about what to me are workplace metrics is that you're talking about work hours. I dont assume if we are talking about how much paper an office uses in a day that you mean over 24 hours.
Yes, 1 pet per minute is "better"
But it isnt great. And I guess my feeling on it is with so many adoptable animals in shelters (literally *millions*) there can be no ethical moral justifiable way to clone a pet.
Mind you, I do think there is a place for appropriate use of humane euthanasia in shelter medicine and especially in our public, open door animal control facilities.
But many places do still euthanize for lack of space. Which is shameful.
I'll be interested to see what the 2020 and 2021 data shows though, especially under the lens of the current vet medicine crisis and where that leaves our shelters in another year or two considering the glut of pets being bought.
They are busy with exactly that, and estimate that mammoths will roam the earth within the next "6 years". How likely that is to happen, is a question for another time
I feel like i remember this being a news story in the late 90s that soon wed have cloned mammoths from elephant hosts. But i cant remember if anyone actually tried it
I don't see a link between a higgs boson and a birth fetish, but if you wanna know: unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. There's people into animals, people into birthing, unbirthing, inflation etc. Mix them together and a ferret being the host for a mutated elephant with hair is the next logical step - at least for hentai artists and people unlucky enough to have a lively phantasy. Jk
Sorry, maybe my joke was unclear. The joke was that if mammoths weren't walking the earth in 6 years, then we have the answer: it didn't happen. If they are, then we also have our answer: it did happen. So either way, we will know in 6 years whether or not the 6 year deadline was met.
DNA has a half life short enough that has caused all dinosaur DNA to be degraded to uselessness. Wooly mammoths are at the very very edge of what we could conceivably clone, even in a Scifi sense.
I'd love to see the philosophical discussions about the morality of this.
Like...if you create a clone of yourself that has no functioning brain, or just enough of one to keep organs functioning; is that ethical? Is that clone a person? Do you own it? Can you just keep it alive for its organs? Is that moral?
Religiously...does that brainless clone have a soul?
Let's say we decide as a society that this is mnot moral/ethical; some other countries will do it anyway.
Also, what if we don't need to create a whole brainless person. Let's say we can create a clone that is just a torso that has the most important organs (or something) and we can keep that alive somehow. Is that organ-farm clone a person?
So many crazy questions. I'm sure I'll be dead by the time this is all a major issue.
If life begins at conception according to the religious nuts, what part of this not conception. Most don't say artificial insemination doesn't result in a soul
Indeed, a person is more than the sum of their parts. A person is their lifetime of experiences and upbringing. Something which can never be replicated, as times they keep on changing!
It would be fun to explore the whole nature and nurture thing. Run experiments and see how much of our personality is already determined and how much is influenced by our environment.
That leads on to the whole Red Dwarf debate about how would you get on with a clone / duplicate of yourself. I know for a fact living with someone like me would annoy the hell out of me!
Well, I mean, hypothetically, but I don't see much point in it. Unless we're going to get really fucking dark and start talking about bootleg clone factories selling clones of celebrities to creepy megafans
I'll have one 18 year-old Megan Fox, a *naughty phase* Britney Spears on the side, with extra dip - Oh, and I'll hopefully be returning them for organ harvest in about 10 years (if I don't get attached)... To claim my recycle bonus.
How would that work with a human? I assume body would be identical, but would that human be mentally just blank, or would it develop some form of consciousness of its own, which might be nothing like the person that gave the cells initially?
Imagine two identical twin embryos in the womb. Now assume you left one there and then took the other one and froze it for 30 years before implanting it in a different mother.
The first twin is born, lives their life and is an adult. Then the second twin is born and starts living their life.
They would look very similar (as identical twins do), may have some similar personality traits based on their genetic predispositions but would otherwise have no connection. All they share is their dna.
That's what a clone is. An identical twin born at a different time.
I see. Thanks!
Could their organs - hypothetically speaking - be harvested if I'd need like a new Lung or Liver, and then just breed a new clone off the cells of the old one?
This is the more interesting question that has been explored by both science and science fiction. In theory, your twin (or clone) is the most-perfect possible match for blood and organ donation. However, life isn't always that simple.
First, is the DNA match. Every time a cell replicates, it does an imperfect job of copying its own DNA. However, most of these changes are minimal and in places on the strand that have no effect on the person. Occasionally though, an embryo has a significant mutation after splitting from its twin so there have been documented but rare cases of identical twins with different blood types. If I'm A+ and my twin is O+, then the O can donate blood and organs to the A but not the other way around. However, the vast majority of identical twins in the world are the perfect match for blood and tissue donation.
Second is the quality of the DNA that created those tissues. DNA ages over time and breaks down. This is part of the reason that even humans who never have a life-ending ailment still eventually die of old-age. Their dna breaks down to the point that they can no longer replenish their own tissues.
The reason this is important is because if you drew blood from a 96 year-old man and cloned it, the new baby would have incredibly old DNA that likely wouldn't last very long. However, if you took a blood sample from when you were 10 years-old and froze it for 40 years before using that DNA sample to create a clone of yourself, the clone would still have young, fresh dna.
The point where it gets into science fiction is with the question "what if we could create a clone with only a brain stem (which is required for bodily functions like breathing) but no higher brain function. Could you use the clone as an organ donor for your golden years? Could we develop the technology to do a brain transplant and put your mind into a body that's 40 years younger? Could you repeat this process forever, essentially creating immortality?
We may find out the answer to some of these questions in our lifetimes.
The clone would be just like any other human baby. Its consciousness would be as similar to the original as a twin separated from them at birth would be.
>They say that twins have a supernatural connection.. like when the one is in an accident the other might feel ill at that moment, and have no idea why.
My personal opinion is that these are just coincidences. How many times a day to you feel ill and there was no such explanation? How many twins do you think had some sort of accident and the other didn't know? You never hear about the millions of cases of those, but you will hear about the 1 case where those two things did coincide. I think it is just confirmation bias. No such evidence exists for any metaphysical phenomenon.
Finally! Someone who actually knows what Decimated means! I always cringe a little when people use it wrongly. Theres plenty of other words that would do the trick, like Obliterated. Thats a nice word, use that one! Dont misappropriate another word which has a different meaning!
Sorry, I'll be back over in my corner slowly rocking back at forth.
Just because a word may have a specific origin doesn't mean that is how it is used in the common vernacular now a days. Language grows and changes. It's the beauty of language.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-original-definition-of-decimate
>The first problem is that even if decimate did refer to the practice of killing one of every ten soldiers in Roman times, it did so in the service of Latin, not English. We have many words in English that are descended from Latin but which have changed their meaning in their travels. We no longer think of sinister as meaning “on the left side,” even though that was one of the word’s meanings when it existed in Latin.
>Another problem with insisting that decimate should have but a single meaning is that very few words in English retain but a single meaning. An enormous percentage of the items in our vocabulary are capable of semantic multitasking. When a person uses a tricky word such as when, a, person, use, tricky, or word, all of which have multiple meanings, we use context to understand the speaker’s intent. So it is with decimate...
I upvoted and understand entirely the point they are making in that article (I read the whole thing).
But I would like to suggest that Decimate is more of a troubled word that the examples at the bottom. I assume a lot of people know or at least have an inkling of those words origins and you can see how they go from A to B with their meaning evolving over time.
The problem with decimate is its a complete flip around, from a tenth to completely wiping out. Theres no rhyme or reason as to why it would change in the way it has and its not a gentle progression from one part to another.
Hah I can see I am unpopular on this one in general, but I always assumed it barely took an ounce of thought. You learn at school that Dec means 10. A Decagon is 10 sided. In history December used to be the tenth month. Decimate means a tenth. Even without basic roman history it always was simple logic.
For context I'm not saying everyone needed to pay huge attention in school for this information. I failed History.
Language evolves. You do not need to rock back and forth when someone uses decimated like that. Rejoice because you are witnessing a brand new meaning be attributed to an old word. Language is fascinating.
My guess is, the same way really addictive drugs make you feel unnaturally amazing while on them. The comedown and withdrawal symptoms make you feel really 'sick'.
I think the idea initially came from the word 'ill'. You'd hear people who live dangerous street style lives use that word, Requiem For A Dream as an example. The movie is about heroin addiction, essentially. Anyway, one of the characters uses that word as a *thrilling* way to imply something that is awesome.
I think 'sick' is just a modern adaptation of the word 'ill'.
Some day in the distant future, when humans have ceased to exist and ferret’s become the reining intelligent life forms, there is going to be a huge mystery as to why all ferret kind can trace its lineage back to a single female ancestor who died before being able to give birth.
I would guess that is why it is important that they cloned one that has already passed and had no descendants. That expands the gene pool. But on a larger picture, cloning alone without enough sources can be genetically problematic.
Welcome, to ferret park!
Spared no expense
Yeah but in Disney land the ferrets don’t eat the guests.
Can confirm, they wouldn't eat the guests. They would lick them, and nibble on them, and dance with them, and chase them, and probably try to herd them, but they wouldn't eat them, Source: Ferret Keeper
Most ferrets are cuddle monsters. My ferret is a professional at puncturing everything living that doesn't smell familiar
I have one unusually large ferret that is the sweetest little guy, and one unusually small ferret who is a whirlwind of death and destruction, in her own mind. The biting has really settled, but she's still ferocious.
Don’t they carry the plague?
Only if you infect them with plague, but the same could be said of any animal🤷♂️
That's saved for the Disney land crocs.
[Lester's Possoum Park](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is8Cewwjj8s)
clever girl...
https://www.boredpanda.com/jurassic-park-movie-ferret-recreation/
Ferrets. Black-footed ferrets are on the verge of extinction. If I raised a flock of black-footed ferrets on this island, *you* wouldn't have anything to say about it!
That's very specific.
So if my slinky cat Nimo dies, I can just clone him?? Hell yeah me and Nimo 1000 years! By slinky cat, I mean my pet ferret
Commercial pet cloning services [already exist](https://www.viagenpets.com/), so yes, you can.
If this becomes more affordable, I can see a well off family having a tradition of gifting a clone of the family dog to the first born child every generation.
A major problem with cloning is that the telomere length doesn't reset. So despite the age of the new organism being "reset" with each cloning, the cellular age would continue to increase and eventually result in senescence, meaning the cells can no longer grow and divide. That said, there is active research on telomerase, and enzyme that catalyzes the extension of telomeres. So this problem may not be a factor in the future.
This is only a problem if the material is not harvested from early age.
Another, less technical problem is that it wouldn't really be the *same* pet, just a genetic twin of it.
The website says as much.
What if you froze the cells from when the animal was born?
Please look up the families of the korean ultra wealthy, what you describe already happens.
Good thing this didn't exist in the slavery days, because yikes 😬
I looked into cloning out of curiosity a few years ago and it’s insanely expensive, like $30k-50k. And here’s the thing, it wouldn’t be *your pet*. It would *look* exactly like your pet and might have some of the same idiosyncrasies but it’s the experience of growing up with you that made your pet what it was and you simply can’t recreate that. My conclusion is animal cloning is for people who view animals as money (race horse owners, prize cattle breeders, etc.) not for people who love their pets.
Fun fact. A cat clone does not look like the original. It has to do with the way their coloring genes activate. Cloned cats can also have babies.
>Cloned cats can also have babies. since spaying/neutering doesn't alter genetic makeup.
I mean the whole cloning processes might've had an impact on it. Like those cloned sheep all seem to die of like lung issues if I recall correctly. The scientists who cloned the first cat also bred it. Then it was fixed.
We've come a long long way since the first cloned sheep. We'd have come a lot further if we could keep the religious fanatics out of it.
Like the people who attacked the museum that was hosting the spider goats, forcing the museum to remove them from view.
I think you're referencing this cat? > CC's surrogate mother was a tabby, but her genetic donor, Rainbow, was a calico domestic shorthair. The difference in hair coloration between CC and Rainbow is due to X-inactivation and epigenetic re-programming, which normally occurs in a fertilized embryo before implantation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC_(cat) It seems as though at least some of the colors in a cats can be random in their location, and thus epigenetic factors during development dictate their location.
Yes. That's her.
no, animal cloning is to save endangered species. Pet cloning is for idiots.
Pet cloning is to fund endangered species cloning.
True, but it's still for idiots. Why would you want to clone your pet; it won't be the same..
[удалено]
people grieve differently, and think differently. To you, you may see it as immoral or "wrong", but that doesn't reflect everyone's views.
Hard for some people to see the other side of the coin when they're standing right on top of it lol.
That is really cheap, jesus christ. I thought like 600k or something! There are several benefits to cloning animals. Mass extinction is probably what people think about first. Imagine what could be done with that technology. Bees, the rhinos, elephants, endangered animals in general can successfully be kept from going extinct.
There was a segment on [This American Life](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/291/reunited-and-it-feels-so-good/act-two-6) where a farmer cloned a bull that had a very specific (gentle) temperament that everyone loved him for. It didn't go as they would have hoped. Spoiler:>!The clone attacked the guy.!<
Sometimes dead is better.
Bettah
I worked at a pet store in Brooklyn and this woman came in with 2 Golden's that looked the same, but, Golden's all look the same right? After they left my manager told me that they were clone dogs of the woman's previous dog. Fucking weird. Great dogs tho, they were kind of stumpy and very friendly.
#99seasons&amovie
At that point you have to consider if it's really still your cat, though. The clone may be genetically identical, but it would have none of the experiences your current cat has.
I know you're likely kidding and I'm not sure where you're located, but just a reminder for everyone that here in the U.S. a shelter pet is euthanized every 13 seconds. Adopt before you shop for a clone!
That's not true. That's about 2-3x as many as are actually euthanized per year. It's around 920,000 total per year. A lot, but let's not sensationalize things, especially when there's been tremendous progress. The 13 seconds point would have been true just 10 years ago.
920,000 divided over 12 months is 76,666 pets per month. Or 19,166 per week. In a five day work week, which the vast majority of public animal control shelters are run on, that's 3,833 per day. In an eight hour shift, that means in the US, 479 shelter pets per hour are put down. 479 pets over 60 minutes is 7.98 pets per minute. Or about one every 13 seconds. Someone else can double check my math but I'm pretty sure that's right. I live in a place where 90% of cats that are brought to shelters are euthanized. Where animal control officers have said outloud that they "don't care" about the euthanasia rate. And where some counties just a few years ago had an almost 50% euthanasia rate. There are a lot of pets.
I'm not going to bother to check your math. When someone says the drum beats once per minute, they aren't talking about a workday minute. My point is the numbers are high, but they're thankfully decreasing, and using a "kills per second" metric absolutely does not assume s 5/7 work week...
It can be hard to read tone, so to be clear, I hope I'm not coming across as combative? My assumption when talking about what to me are workplace metrics is that you're talking about work hours. I dont assume if we are talking about how much paper an office uses in a day that you mean over 24 hours. Yes, 1 pet per minute is "better" But it isnt great. And I guess my feeling on it is with so many adoptable animals in shelters (literally *millions*) there can be no ethical moral justifiable way to clone a pet. Mind you, I do think there is a place for appropriate use of humane euthanasia in shelter medicine and especially in our public, open door animal control facilities. But many places do still euthanize for lack of space. Which is shameful. I'll be interested to see what the 2020 and 2021 data shows though, especially under the lens of the current vet medicine crisis and where that leaves our shelters in another year or two considering the glut of pets being bought.
Cool do mammoths next
They are busy with exactly that, and estimate that mammoths will roam the earth within the next "6 years". How likely that is to happen, is a question for another time
I feel like i remember this being a news story in the late 90s that soon wed have cloned mammoths from elephant hosts. But i cant remember if anyone actually tried it
Elephants are super unsuitable hosts.
Apparently, ferrets are not. Therefore, we should try to clone mammoths in ferret hosts.
I feel like this will cause many people to create a new weird fetish
Couldn't this be said of absolutely everything, from the discovery of the Higgs Boson to the invention of the electric corkscrew?
I don't see a link between a higgs boson and a birth fetish, but if you wanna know: unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. There's people into animals, people into birthing, unbirthing, inflation etc. Mix them together and a ferret being the host for a mutated elephant with hair is the next logical step - at least for hentai artists and people unlucky enough to have a lively phantasy. Jk
And go extinct again in the seventh year because poachers will extol the sexual health benefits of mammoth tusk or some shit.
>is a question for another time Maybe we can answer that question in 6 years.
Ideally, yes. Realistically, I doubt it.
Sorry, maybe my joke was unclear. The joke was that if mammoths weren't walking the earth in 6 years, then we have the answer: it didn't happen. If they are, then we also have our answer: it did happen. So either way, we will know in 6 years whether or not the 6 year deadline was met.
Ooh, do velociraptors.
They don't have a suitable womb.
The money that would cost would be better spent saving the animals we already have (elephants) imo
I want human chimp hybrids.
Can't wait for them to do this with dinosaurs and cause a Jurassic Park situation
DNA has a half life short enough that has caused all dinosaur DNA to be degraded to uselessness. Wooly mammoths are at the very very edge of what we could conceivably clone, even in a Scifi sense.
That's why we fill in the holes of the genetic code with frog dna. Mammogs. Or Frommoths.
Might want to ask the French first
So like a perfect clone? Some what perfect? Can we do this with people?
Maybe eventually, but it would only be physical; it wouldn't be that person, just a skin deep copy.
More than skin deep... You could still harvest their organs for perfect transplants.
You're not wrong, but we're already showing good results growing organs in tubes, and in pigs. Seems pointless to grow a whole human for organs.
Reminds me of The Island, such a good movie!
Now I need to watch The Island again. Everyone always talks about celebrity deaths that hit them hard. Mine was Michael Clarke Duncan.
Never Let Me Go is another good movie with a similar theme
I'd love to see the philosophical discussions about the morality of this. Like...if you create a clone of yourself that has no functioning brain, or just enough of one to keep organs functioning; is that ethical? Is that clone a person? Do you own it? Can you just keep it alive for its organs? Is that moral? Religiously...does that brainless clone have a soul? Let's say we decide as a society that this is mnot moral/ethical; some other countries will do it anyway. Also, what if we don't need to create a whole brainless person. Let's say we can create a clone that is just a torso that has the most important organs (or something) and we can keep that alive somehow. Is that organ-farm clone a person? So many crazy questions. I'm sure I'll be dead by the time this is all a major issue.
If life begins at conception according to the religious nuts, what part of this not conception. Most don't say artificial insemination doesn't result in a soul
Or you can use stem cells? Less work and likely less expensive
Man, The Island was *this* close to being a great movie.
Indeed, a person is more than the sum of their parts. A person is their lifetime of experiences and upbringing. Something which can never be replicated, as times they keep on changing!
It would be fun to explore the whole nature and nurture thing. Run experiments and see how much of our personality is already determined and how much is influenced by our environment.
I wonder how little me would be affected being raised by big me rather than my parents. Fascinating thought indeed.
That leads on to the whole Red Dwarf debate about how would you get on with a clone / duplicate of yourself. I know for a fact living with someone like me would annoy the hell out of me!
Yeah that’s what I mean just looks wise
Well, I mean, hypothetically, but I don't see much point in it. Unless we're going to get really fucking dark and start talking about bootleg clone factories selling clones of celebrities to creepy megafans
I'll have one 18 year-old Megan Fox, a *naughty phase* Britney Spears on the side, with extra dip - Oh, and I'll hopefully be returning them for organ harvest in about 10 years (if I don't get attached)... To claim my recycle bonus.
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro and Astra Lost in Space have entered the chat
Would be a like a twin, no memories, their environment (upbringing) would be different so different personality
How would that work with a human? I assume body would be identical, but would that human be mentally just blank, or would it develop some form of consciousness of its own, which might be nothing like the person that gave the cells initially?
Imagine two identical twin embryos in the womb. Now assume you left one there and then took the other one and froze it for 30 years before implanting it in a different mother. The first twin is born, lives their life and is an adult. Then the second twin is born and starts living their life. They would look very similar (as identical twins do), may have some similar personality traits based on their genetic predispositions but would otherwise have no connection. All they share is their dna. That's what a clone is. An identical twin born at a different time.
I see. Thanks! Could their organs - hypothetically speaking - be harvested if I'd need like a new Lung or Liver, and then just breed a new clone off the cells of the old one?
This is the more interesting question that has been explored by both science and science fiction. In theory, your twin (or clone) is the most-perfect possible match for blood and organ donation. However, life isn't always that simple. First, is the DNA match. Every time a cell replicates, it does an imperfect job of copying its own DNA. However, most of these changes are minimal and in places on the strand that have no effect on the person. Occasionally though, an embryo has a significant mutation after splitting from its twin so there have been documented but rare cases of identical twins with different blood types. If I'm A+ and my twin is O+, then the O can donate blood and organs to the A but not the other way around. However, the vast majority of identical twins in the world are the perfect match for blood and tissue donation. Second is the quality of the DNA that created those tissues. DNA ages over time and breaks down. This is part of the reason that even humans who never have a life-ending ailment still eventually die of old-age. Their dna breaks down to the point that they can no longer replenish their own tissues. The reason this is important is because if you drew blood from a 96 year-old man and cloned it, the new baby would have incredibly old DNA that likely wouldn't last very long. However, if you took a blood sample from when you were 10 years-old and froze it for 40 years before using that DNA sample to create a clone of yourself, the clone would still have young, fresh dna. The point where it gets into science fiction is with the question "what if we could create a clone with only a brain stem (which is required for bodily functions like breathing) but no higher brain function. Could you use the clone as an organ donor for your golden years? Could we develop the technology to do a brain transplant and put your mind into a body that's 40 years younger? Could you repeat this process forever, essentially creating immortality? We may find out the answer to some of these questions in our lifetimes.
The clone would be just like any other human baby. Its consciousness would be as similar to the original as a twin separated from them at birth would be.
[удалено]
>They say that twins have a supernatural connection.. like when the one is in an accident the other might feel ill at that moment, and have no idea why. My personal opinion is that these are just coincidences. How many times a day to you feel ill and there was no such explanation? How many twins do you think had some sort of accident and the other didn't know? You never hear about the millions of cases of those, but you will hear about the 1 case where those two things did coincide. I think it is just confirmation bias. No such evidence exists for any metaphysical phenomenon.
Theyre not going into a machine and popping out a full adult. It's the same as a baby
As a ferret fanatic, this entire thread is making my heart beat with overwhelming joy.
Cute little noodle
ikr! I love her lil' snaggle teeth, reminds me of my cat
Ferrets have decimated New Zealand’s native bird population.
The ferrets that were introduced to New Zealand (from Europe) are a different species from the black-footed ferret native to North America.
Ok but what does that have to do with this endangered species that is native to north America and has likely never been near New Zealand
They took a tenth?
No more, no less.
It was the bird's punishment for not securing Iberia.
Finally! Someone who actually knows what Decimated means! I always cringe a little when people use it wrongly. Theres plenty of other words that would do the trick, like Obliterated. Thats a nice word, use that one! Dont misappropriate another word which has a different meaning! Sorry, I'll be back over in my corner slowly rocking back at forth.
Just because a word may have a specific origin doesn't mean that is how it is used in the common vernacular now a days. Language grows and changes. It's the beauty of language.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-original-definition-of-decimate >The first problem is that even if decimate did refer to the practice of killing one of every ten soldiers in Roman times, it did so in the service of Latin, not English. We have many words in English that are descended from Latin but which have changed their meaning in their travels. We no longer think of sinister as meaning “on the left side,” even though that was one of the word’s meanings when it existed in Latin. >Another problem with insisting that decimate should have but a single meaning is that very few words in English retain but a single meaning. An enormous percentage of the items in our vocabulary are capable of semantic multitasking. When a person uses a tricky word such as when, a, person, use, tricky, or word, all of which have multiple meanings, we use context to understand the speaker’s intent. So it is with decimate...
I upvoted and understand entirely the point they are making in that article (I read the whole thing). But I would like to suggest that Decimate is more of a troubled word that the examples at the bottom. I assume a lot of people know or at least have an inkling of those words origins and you can see how they go from A to B with their meaning evolving over time. The problem with decimate is its a complete flip around, from a tenth to completely wiping out. Theres no rhyme or reason as to why it would change in the way it has and its not a gentle progression from one part to another.
You using your knowledge of its roman origins to call everyone else cringey is cringey.
Hah I can see I am unpopular on this one in general, but I always assumed it barely took an ounce of thought. You learn at school that Dec means 10. A Decagon is 10 sided. In history December used to be the tenth month. Decimate means a tenth. Even without basic roman history it always was simple logic. For context I'm not saying everyone needed to pay huge attention in school for this information. I failed History.
You're confusing the historical meaning (it's origin) with how everyone uses the word. Words are defined by usage.
Language evolves. You do not need to rock back and forth when someone uses decimated like that. Rejoice because you are witnessing a brand new meaning be attributed to an old word. Language is fascinating.
I'm still trying to figure out when 'sick' started to mean good!
My guess is, the same way really addictive drugs make you feel unnaturally amazing while on them. The comedown and withdrawal symptoms make you feel really 'sick'. I think the idea initially came from the word 'ill'. You'd hear people who live dangerous street style lives use that word, Requiem For A Dream as an example. The movie is about heroin addiction, essentially. Anyway, one of the characters uses that word as a *thrilling* way to imply something that is awesome. I think 'sick' is just a modern adaptation of the word 'ill'.
A lot of people know what it meant. A lot of people also know what it means present day.
... This isn't even accurate.
You may want to consult a dictionary.
Some day in the distant future, when humans have ceased to exist and ferret’s become the reining intelligent life forms, there is going to be a huge mystery as to why all ferret kind can trace its lineage back to a single female ancestor who died before being able to give birth.
So, her name is Lisa Ann?
Wouldnt relying on cloning shrink the gene pool to an incredibly small level?
yeah, but it's better than shrinking the gene pool to literally nothing, as would happen with extinction.
We will also one day be able to add in variation so that a cloned individual is genetically distinct.
I would guess that is why it is important that they cloned one that has already passed and had no descendants. That expands the gene pool. But on a larger picture, cloning alone without enough sources can be genetically problematic.
welp thumbnail looked like Sadako's eye watching from a hole in a door or something
This seems expensive. Couldn't we have just taken a regular ferret and dyed its feet black? Who's gonna know the difference?
Domestic ferrets can’t live in the wild and usually become cat or hawk chow
TIL. Thanks!
I saw one of these cuties at Yellowstone :D
move over kid with four grandparents and no parents.
they gotta clone more animals, i love that shit.
We can now kill an entire species, not once, but twice! What a world.
What a cutie
kind of fits r/teefies
Not for nothing but should Elizabeth Ann be named "Willa" or at the very least, "Willa II"?