site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3064 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 26, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What happened to Neuralink? I recall them moving to human trials a few years back, but there have been no news since. Did it turn out to be harmful to the patients?

Just like how there was a massive moral panic about human cloning, and then the second it became possible there was sudden total radio silence. :^) I’m sure they aren’t doing anything in secret though.

There's not really that much use for human cloning. The result is a baby with specific genes, but there are still all the stochastic differences from growing from embryo to baby to adult.

It's possible that China has a secret lab full of Terance Tao clones to work on future government project but it's not clear if there would be any ROI from that.

Now, rich parents secretly / quietly using CRISPR to try to give advantages to their future children? Definitely happening.

Why would the Chinese bother when selective breeding with 145 IQ parents is so much easier?

I suppose some people believed that comic-book garbage about clones inheriting the memory and personality of the original.

rich parents secretly / quietly using CRISPR to try to give advantages to their future children? Definitely happening.

Is this an intuition or something you’ve seen? Would be very interesting if it were the latter but my impression is that the wealthy tend to be risk-averse.

It's just my intuition. I'm not saying it's widespread.

It just seems to me that given how long the technology has been around and the successes in plants & animals it'd be very surprising if there have been zero human births.

Probably just starts with removing a gene for a major risk like Huntington's then while they're in there make sure the kid doesn't get the alcoholism gene or a known low IQ gene.

Well, the lunatic fringe seem to be interested. Nutjob more money than sense Bryan Johnson is claiming he has a clone of himself for, basically, spare parts. I very much doubt this, though I am sure there are unscrupulous medical researchers perfectly happy to promise any Mr. Moneybags they'll get him whatever he wants, here's my bank account number, thank you.

Apparently it turns out that Mr. "I want to live forever" has a genuine medical problem of some nature, so of course he immediately leaps to "clone myself and use the resulting product as a guinea pig for treatments-cum-spare parts repository".

I am very nearly sorry for him, except that this is too damn much like all the classical Greek plays about hubris, plus at least he doesn't seem to actually be cloning a foetus, he's just having adult stem cells created:

The immortality influencer shared in an X update that he has a “baby” version of himself growing in a petri dish that he says will allow him to become his “own blood boy” — doesn’t he already have a son who does that for him? — and potentially even “grow organs for transplantation.”

“This may be scary to some people… a dystopian future,” Johnson wrote. “But, for others, they will see it as the inevitable future of health.”

In case this is all starting to sound like the grim sci-fi plot of a certain Michael Bay movie or Kazuo Ishiguro novel, it’s not a literal, living breathing clone. (Although by posting an infamous picture of himself edited to look like a baby, Johnson’s certainly playing into that impression.)

Instead, Johnson’s created his own pluripotent stem cells. These stem cells can self-renew and develop into any type of cell in the body, making them invaluable for repairing damaged tissue.

Where Johnson’s claims of cloning himself as a “newborn” come in is the fact that these highly versatile stem cells normally only exist when we’re still an embryo. But in recent decades scientists have developed techniques to reprogram regular adult cells into an embryonic pluripotent state, which are called induced pluripotent stem cells.

Johnson is confident that by having his own store of stem cells on hand he can “rebuild” his body, repairing everything from damaged lungs to eyesight.

“This technology gives us a path to reverse aging,” he declares.

If Johnson really was trying to grow a clone baby to full term, I think there's legal precedent with saviour babies where courts have permitted parents to implant embryos in order to obtain transplants for an already existing sick child. I don't like that, since the second child is explicitly only brought into being for spare parts (the parents didn't plan on having more children until their only child got sick) but it's legal. So Johnson probably could successfully argue he needs this saviour baby:

A savior baby, savior sibling, or donor baby is a child who is conceived in order to provide a stem cell, bone marrow, or other transplant to a sibling that is affected with a fatal disease, such as cancer or Fanconi anemia, that can best be treated by hematopoietic stem cell, or other transplant

If Johnson could get such a baby, would he be allowed to treat it as a guinea pig etc. or would he be obligated legally to only get the stem cell transplants and then raise the child as offspring (and not "Daddy needs a kidney, Daddy needs a lobe of your liver, Daddy needs your heart")?

And this, children, is why the Catholic Church is no-no on such tech because we hate progress and science and want everyone to suffer.

Meanwhile the biggest argument against the Catholic Church is why hasn't God smitten us all yet? It's inexplicable. Maybe we have just barely enough rosarys/day to keep it at bay for now.

It's inexplicable.

He promised not to. It's right there in the Bible.

Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your [a]descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.

It rules out a flood. No comment on other means of destruction.

The promise of "I would not use a single one out of infinite possible ways of destroying you" is hardly worth anything, so I don't think that's what it meant. The people at that time may have lived in different societies from ours, but they weren't stupid.

It is pretty well accepted across most forms of Christianity that at some point this world will end. I'm not sure what tradition you are pulling from where God will not destroy the world as it exists today and make a new Heaven and new Earth.

at some point this world will end

The flood didn't end the world. It ended the sinners (presumably, though as we all know it didn't exactly work out that way). That's what the covenant promises not to do, and that's what the original question was about - why God didn't destroy "us all", presumably for our sins. That's exactly what happened in the story of Noah, and that's exactly what the abovementioned covenant was about. The Christian (and other religions') treatment of the Eschaton is substantially different from that. And there's no specific trigger condition for it.

More comments

A quick wiki skim suggests 2008 as the first likely success in making cloned human embryos. Interest in human cloning has been pretty consistently declining for as long as there's data (since 2005) up until late 2025 and we are now at a ten year high.

The majority of people think cloning failed. Specifically, that Dolly died early from early-onset arthritis because the cloned DNA was 'old'. It's not true but it's very widely believed.

Source? I see a 2026 poll saying that people think cloning is immoral (64 percent for animals and 86 percent for humans), and a 2002 poll saying that people think cloning humans is possible (76 percent), but no poll saying that people think cloning is impossible or impractical due to accelerated aging.

None, sorry. Just an impression. I thought that until 25 or so, and I assumed that if I (knowing quite a lot about that sort of thing) took that long to get corrected, most people must still believe it.

For what it's worth, I was also under the impression that Dolly was a failure story.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats