(from this ?-sfw article: www.gayexplained.com/bonobo-human-clitoris/ )

Bonobos are like our species' sexually deviant relative that we don't openly speak about

Reminds me of the Freakonomics chapter where primate researchers unwittingly encouraged prostitution while trying to introduce the concept of money into a monkey society.

My closest living relatives are my brother and my parents.

@draug, are they Neanderthals? Or perhaps Devisonians??

Nope, homo sapiens sapiens. But they are blood relatives. I, of course, am homo superior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43GChXc6RVY

And, let's not forget the so called humanzee experiments. These are chimp - human hybrids. There were soviet experiments involving attempts at inseminating human women with chimpanzee semen.

Not sure if that worked out, most sources say no, but then, we have President Eden who claims his mother is a chimpanzee.

Personally I doubt his claims. He has yet to satisfactorily prove any human ancestry.

The only thing keeping a humanzee from being made is that such a project would be entirely unethical

I could name a couple more things.

That does show that being gay isn't as unnatural as some like to claim though, if nature does it too.

@Dirge, most sources say the chimps died before the experimenter managed to inseminate anyone... which is an example of how bad the knowledge of caring for chimps was among these particular researchers (and possible that they shouldn't have been anywhere near the research in the first place)

@invictus, perhaps the number of chromosomes (46 vs 48) would also provide a hurdle... though horses and donkeys can interbreed, and so can lions and tigers, aswell a polar and grizzly bears... so it's not beyond the pale. The ethics on the other hand is a tough one. If we could prevent the media from infringing on the privacy of anyone invovled; and guarentee a minimum standard of living and rights for the humanzee offspring produced, then it is possible to do this study ethically. (first we'll probably see an attempt to bring back a Neanderthal with a human surrogate) There is always a learning curve which might involve hundred of embryos dying due to natural causes... and that may be the biggest ethical issue - unless you're fine with embryos dying.

lmao who the hell is this dirge dipshit

"If we could prevent the media from infringing on the privacy of anyone invovled; and guarentee a minimum standard of living and rights for the humanzee offspring produced, then it is possible to do this study ethically."

No, it can never be done ethically. The problem isn't how many embryos die. The problem is how the one that survives lives. You'd be making a creature which would be entirely alone on the world, unable to fit in to either species' society. If it errs more towards having a human mind it would be rattled by an existential crisis like none of us could even imagine.

This is why a humanzee will never be created. Getting it done requires a significant investment in resources, and the way you get those resources requires too many smart people to get involved who will realize what a horrible thing this would really be.

Human cloning is more ethical than humanzee breeding for the exact reason invictus points out. At least the clone is human where as the human zee is a whole new species.

Eh, I'd say human cloning would still be more unethical. Loads of nonviable fetuses and profoundly disabled babies is an insurmountable hurdle, and since these would be wholly human it'd be a bigger deal than unsuccessful humanzees (I know you have a bizarre equivalency ideology when it comes to human and animal life, but that's not shared by scientists when it comes to ethical questions).

Also, a human clone that lives and grows up would be in a pretty horrible psychological situation. What is a clone's identity? How does he handle knowing he's a copy of another person, and therefore not unique? And so on. As interesting as those problems might be to explore and find answers to, we shouldn't make a person for those reasons. Why burden a person with such a life?

You assume the clone has to be told he isn't a natural born human. He could be raised just like any other child, with two parents. We do it all the time with adopted kids and lie to them. Why not a clone child? But I can see the concern about the fetus deaths and such.

Maybe that would be OK (I'd say no, but it seems like a thing that could go either way), but why even put the person in that situation? What if he did eventually find out? You're talking about a person's life here.

Humanzees would surely be doomed to the short bus, then there is the cost of case management and public welfare unless we can expect such off spring to become self sufficient and productive.

And, if we are talking Humnobo (or Bonoman?) hybrids, there is the problem of inappropriate sexual behaviors in public places.

A human clone is no different from a member of a set of monozygotal twins (commonly known as identical twins). These people are not unique. Are their lives burdened? The whole benefit of a clone is that you don't lie to them. You tell them that they should not bother learning to play cricket, because their eyesight will start failing in their early twenties, and that they're more likely to succeed at long-distance running, but that they should be aware that they'll have a tendency to gain weight after the age of 50.

A clone is extremely different than an identical twin. Most importantly, there's the age difference. What are the psychological effects of looking at what is effectively a future version of yourself? And not only a future version, but the original, "authentic" version, of which you are just a copy?

Putting a person in a situation like that would be unacceptable, and that's why science fiction style cloning where a whole person is made will never happen.

Just a point of correction: despite many misguided sci fi representations that tell you otherwise, clones are NOT a future version of yourself. It is more like, as chrisvis suggested, a DELAYED version of a "identical" twin and artificially rather then naturally incepted.

Read more closely. That is what I said.

There is no authentic versus non-authentic in clones, both are individuals as much as two monozygotic twins.

I know sheep are not human, but is there anything fundamentally different about clones of Dolly that set them apart from other sheep? Apart from their shared monozygotism, the answer is NO.

Yes, Invict, I am reading what you said, "A clone is _extremely_ different than an identical twin." (emphasis added)

And, ". . . what is effectively a future version of yourself" - Invictus describing the nature of clones on Jan 5, 2014.

That's not describing the nature of clones, it's describing the natural-born "brother" of the clone from the clone's perspective. Again, read a little more carefully. Also, I was never talking about biological differences, but rather the mental and psychological differences which exist between a clone and its "brother" and between natural-born twins. You can't honestly believe that there's no difference between the two situations in that regard.

You are desperately back peddling. That's okay, I can respect that. Even the best intellect has to admit error sometimes.

Sure there will be differences in terms of what people decide it means to be a clone. This is culturally and experientially determined. If someone made a clone today, it might feel/mean something very different than it might feel/mean in a world where 90% of individuals identify as clone.

People had similar concerns about in vitro fertilization at one time.

I'm not pro-clone, I just think that some fears are less than rational.

What are the chances that a younger sibling will he genetically identical?
(1 / 46!), i think. That is unfathomably rare, i mean really... No wait it is (0.5)^46 which is only 1 in 70,000 billion. - natural clones are possible if unlikely with the current number of humans to have ever lived. But i can see very little of the psychological issue. Kids adapt pretty well to new information. Adopted kids should probably be told around the age of 4-6 when it's not going to make much of a difference...

Adopted kids should be told at such a young age, and so frequently, that they should never be able to remember a time when they didn't know.

I don't think there is consensus about "adopted kids should be told at such a young age . . . they should never be able to remember . . ."

@orathaic: "What are the chances that a younger sibling will he genetically identical?"

Perhaps you have an idea as to how this relevant to anything?

That sibling is an identical clone of their elder sibling, and naturally occuring, presumably without the psychological worries which were referenced above.... but why do i need to dissect my contribution? Can you not do some of the thinking on your own?

"And not only a future version, but the original, "authentic" version, of which you are just a copy?"

That assumes you are cloning an adult. What if all cloning were restricted to existing newborns or fetuses so they were within 2 years in age?

I don't know, draug, i suspect it will become as trivial as ivf. Except in that case there is a reason to try the treatment - some kind of right to reproduce despite nature - whereas there is no particular need to clone (and the drive toward breeding, as we do with dogs, is fairly low)

I suspect cloning may become something of a "give my kid the best by having a "twin" for replacement parts"

We could use cloning to grow replacement parts, but with the current (slow) pace of research, we're going to be able to lab grow custom organs from adult's own cells before we actually have our first human clone. So that fear at least will be going away.

"We could use cloning to grow replacement parts"

odd that you question the ethics of cloning, and then go on to state we could grow clones for _parts_. Seems to me that is an ethical problem if there ever was one.

That's not an ethical issue with cloning, that is an ethical issue with using humans as spare parts.

I suspect you are confused...

odd dissonance on your part nevertheless

If we could do more stem cell research, we could likely grow spare parts from them.

@Draug, 'we're going to be able to lab grow custom organs from adult's own cells before we actually have our first human clone.' - have you seen the stuff with 3 printed organs? Lots of work being done with adult 'pluripotent' cells (because they don't like calling things stem cells, pluripotent are getting pretty close to doing the same job)

And 3 structures/scaffolds are doing pretty well for building up shapes, and blood supplies... complex organs may be a while away, like the kidneys and liver do some very intricate work, but a pure muscle like the heart shouldn't take too long.