PDA

View Full Version : Cloning, and genetic Engineering!


Phizzle
04-28-2003, 05:05 PM
Why should we have to clone? Sure, some people might need something or they will die, but is it really right for someone to give life to a thing and just use it as a tool? How would you feel if you were born just so your parts could be used?

That also brings up the fact that clones wouldn't be the same person. They have to grow like normal humans do. They can't have the same sense of humor or personality of that person. Identical twins are an example of this. They look alike, but they are different people because the way they act. You cannot bring up a clone just like the original person because of the expieriences.

This is also like a Sperm Bank. Women go in and try to get a child that has red hair and blue eyes. Wouldn't you like your child to be like you instead? Your kid asks you who their father was and you respond, "Well, one was a guy who has red hair, the other was a guy with blue eyes, and the last was a genius."

Should all of these be tolerated?

Dagobahn Eagle
04-28-2003, 05:30 PM
This is also like a Sperm Bank. Women go in and try to get a child that has red hair and blue eyes. Wouldn't you like your child to be like you instead? Your kid asks you who their father was and you respond, "Well, one was a guy who has red hair, the other was a guy with blue eyes, and the last was a genius."This is pretty similarily to C'Jais's "what if you were meant to like boys but your mom made you like girls"-thread.

I'd love to have black hair. Not necessarily small eyes, but I like black hair (no matter what ethnic group it belongs to). Let's say I was supposed to be born with black hair, but my mom changed me so that I'd be blond and "fit in". I'd be mad. But I'd also be mad if my mom made me have black hair. Why? Because it's not me either.

Everyone are what we are. It's not us who should improve to fit the a**holes in society who don't like minority groups or people who like their own gender: It is the minority groups who should change society so that the a**holes go away.

There is, however, one usage for cloning: Organ donation. Let's say we find a pig that has a good heart and we clone 1,000 copies of it and donate its hearts and save close to 1,000 lives, minus those who reject the hearts, etc.

Breton
04-28-2003, 08:05 PM
I have always thought it wrong to be able to change how your child becomes. Except if it's about changing something wrong with the child, and here I don't mean liking boys, but for example not being able to hear, not being able to use its legs, being blind from birth, etc.

But on the other hand, where should the line go between what's ok to do and what's not? I mean, let's say someone 'fixes' a fetus that would have writing problems. Then the next would be that someone 'fixes' a fetus who's abnormally dumb. And next, there would be someone who would 'fix' a fetus that would simply be dumber than normal. And next, all children born will have an IQ of 160.

If people should fix all their children into being handsome, blond, blue-eyed, smart, kind, calm and quiet, then what would be the point?

Better off leaving them alone, unless you can get some clear lines between what's acceptable and what's not. The only problem is that there will always be disagreements on where these lines should go.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-28-2003, 08:24 PM
Good points, Breton.

Actually, as I child (age 4, I think) I had some speech problems. Nothing major, just pronounciation. I got tutorials and now I speak three languages. I'm not retarded, people say I'm smart (except from this girl who thinks I'm an idiot:D).

Point is, if my parents noticed that before I was born.. well, what if they changed it? I'd never go to the tutorials and who knows, maybe the fun I had there caused me to think language was fun, and is the reason why I still take classes in German and once took two years of classes to learn basic Spanish?

IMO, you can't change genes for the same reason as you can't go back and change history: We don't know if we're really doing the right thing.

ET Warrior
04-29-2003, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
IMO, you can't change genes for the same reason as you can't go back and change history: We don't know if we're really doing the right thing.

And I always thought that we couldn't go back and change history because time travel is rather impossible at the moment......

CagedCrado
04-30-2003, 09:42 PM
Clones are just like normal people.... i think its right to clone new body parts and new organs (from the person themself, no rejections) but not really editing people.... maybe to cure disease though.

SkinWalker
05-01-2003, 04:03 PM
Let's face it. Some day, there will be a clone of a human, if there's not already.

The arguments against cloning, in my view, are actually invalid. There are several main arguments, one of the more promenant being that the results will be genetic "monstrosities" or horribly misdeveloped. If that is the case, then there really is no problem. Regular cloning won't happen, because scientist/cloners will not want this type of result. They just won't do it. No restrictions needed.

Another argument is against having an "identical you." As someone mentioned earlier, that won't happen. You would not only have to clone the physiology of the person, but the environment as well. Right down to the number of cloudy days and unexpected loud noises. Couldn't be done.

Playing god is another argument, but that one isn't valid for many reasons. Scientifically speaking, it is entirely invalid. Even if one buys into the whole faith meme, there are still theological reasons why it's invalid. In at least three religious documents used by the world's major religions, it mentions man being created in a diety's "image." That, in itself, would indicate that it is acceptable to take on "god-like" qualities in order to maintain and improve the human condition. Fundamentalists no doubt would fume at that statement, but it is valid none the less. Throughout history, man's attempts to improve the human condition and general knowledge have been considered "playing god," such as medical advances in surgery, blood transfusion, and family planning. Also in areas of science such as astronomy, biology, and nuclear chemistry.

Michael Shermer at
Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=13&articleID=00084EAF-2081-1E61-A98A809EC5880105) said, "the soul of science is found in courageous thought and creative experiment, not in restrictive fear and prohibitions." I have to agree, otherwise we would still subscribe to the religious poppycock that the Sun orbits the Earth.

Cosmos Jack
05-01-2003, 10:54 PM
Has anyone ever seen the movie "Gatica"?

Personally I'm for cloning when necessary. Sci-Fi and religion has put a stigma on the subject. A case of the confused leading the blind. Not Sci-fi though just religion ;)

Though the movie "Gatica" deals with eugenics not cloning. I am also for that as long as it’s Government funded, encouraged, and free. The Human race has for all purposes stopped evolving. All the natural forces that encouraged our evolution are no longer present. All the people that should have kids don't and all the people that shouldn't have kids have way dam to many. If I could fined out my child’s genetic problems before birth and could choose between my child having Down Syndrome or a 200+ IQ. I would choose the 200+ IQ.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-04-2003, 12:58 AM
Doesn't sound to good to me, CJ.

SkinWalker, have you ever considered the impact it will have on the life of the subject and the clone? I'm surprised why no one has used this argument before.

I'm a minority group in more than one way. I know what it's like, and I'm tried of all the fools after only a year or two of being a minority. And that's a minority that's fairly common, too, and, as I said, only for two years.

Now, can you imagine what it'll be like for the clone to be a minority group of one person? One person. There will be no one in the world that are like you. The subject you were cloned from? No. He/she is different from you, as he/she is not cloned.

Add to that that you're an invoulantary celebrity with absolutely no private life, no matter where in the world you go. Add to that that you're a "research subject", and the only reason why you came to the world is that some scientists wanted to see if a certain technique was possible; and that if something went wrong, they would have discarded you. And when you exist, it's only for these scientists to experiment on you and develop more theories on this technique called cloning. "You do this because we're right. You do that because we're wrong (=you're acting different than the subject)."

Look at the Hell all the celebrities are going trough. Being the world's first clone will be 1,000,000 times worse.

Two words: Living Hell. If you can't imagine why, you seriously need to sit down and think. If I was the first clone I'd kill myself, and when you clone someone, it'll be a miracle if he or she lives past 18. I'd simply go insane, and I know you would too.

And don't say you can "just not tell him or her". Why is this a ridicoulous statement? Because the whole world will know the truth, and it's pretty hard to keep 6,000,000,000+ people from telling you something, right? Eventually the kid will wonder why he never gets to be around other people, and why he's getting so much attention.

And you can't keep him/her a secret. No matter how secret something is, something's going to leak out. Don't even think about saying that you could keep a successful cloning secret until the clone is "mature" enough to find out the truth.

CJ, you've seen Gatica? Well, go play Final Fantasy VII and check out the reactions of Cloud and Sepiroth.

In conclusion, don't clone anyone unless it's absolutely necessary for some reason.

Why should we have to clone? Sure, some people might need something or they will die, but is it really right for someone to give life to a thing and just use it as a tool? How would you feel if you were born just so your parts could be used?
If you're talking about cloning animals, that's an invalid argument. We're already doing that. Meat-eating, anyone?

We breed cows, slaughter them, and eat them. We domesticated cows only to use them as tools. And about cloning, many vegetables we eat have had their DNA manipulated.

Now, if it's okay to breed cows just because we like the taste of them (without saving human lives), why is it suddenly so wrong to breed or clone them to save lives??

If you're a vegetarian, you may use this argument. If you eat meat, you cannot without being a hypocrite.

Phizzle
05-04-2003, 02:17 AM
I never said cloning cows for food was good? Cloning another life to save someone else's life by killing that person or taking their parts is just as good as the original dying in the first place. Or are you talking about the cows? If that's the case, that's not morally right either. This cloning could become very dangerous if we use it the wrong way. Just like Star Wars :p

SkinWalker
05-04-2003, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Doesn't sound to good to me, CJ.

SkinWalker, have you ever considered the impact it will have on the life of the subject and the clone? I'm surprised why no one has used this argument before.

Now, can you imagine what it'll be like for the clone to be a minority group of one person? One person. There will be no one in the world that are like you. The subject you were cloned from? No. He/she is different from you, as he/she is not cloned.

Is this different than now? Not to be funny, but I'd like to think I'm about as individual as that future clone.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Add to that that you're an invoulantary celebrity with absolutely no private life, no matter where in the world you go. Add to that that you're a "research subject", and the only reason why you came to the world is that some scientists wanted to see if a certain technique was possible; and that if something went wrong, they would have discarded you.

I don't see this as different as other medical breakthroughs. The first artificially inseminated person, for instance. True enough, this would be a bit more media hype, but I think it would be short lived. Like the guy that got the first aritifical heart... Barney something. Actually, his name was Barney Clark, but most people don't remember that, even though it was plastered on the news for days.

The world is full of involuntary celebrities. But I maintain that should cloning humans one day prove to be safe and effective, that first clone's celebrity will be so short lived, he/she will probably be forgotten by the masses by the time he/she learns to ride a bike.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And when you exist, it's only for these scientists to experiment on you and develop more theories on this technique called cloning. "You do this because we're right. You do that because we're wrong (=you're acting different than the subject)."

I'm not sure I follow those last two sentances, but I would fully expect a lifetime of study, much the same way any new medical treatment/procedure would entail. I highly doubt that there will be a lot of intrusive experimentation and expect that research, study and experiments will be mostly passive. The lad would undoubtedly make regular visits to the doctor's office and would probably receive better health care than 99% of the U.S. population.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Look at the Hell all the celebrities are going trough. Being the world's first clone will be 1,000,000 times worse.

It's a valid consideration, but I think that going into the cloning process with that possibility in mind will help avoid it. Neither of us or anyone else can say with any reasonable certainty what would become of the "clone" in so far as "celebrity" status. All we can really do is draw comparissons to other "medical celebrities" and make predictions.

The fact is, there will be a first clone. I think it better to do so in a controlled environment rather than some underground lab.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
...and when you clone someone, it'll be a miracle if he or she lives past 18. I'd simply go insane, and I know you would too.

Nope. You don't. Most of your points are worth consideration, but this one is pure assumption most likely based on fear of the unknown.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And don't say you can "just not tell him or her". Why is this a ridicoulous statement?

Because the truth should be open and accessible. I agree, not disclosing it to the "clone" would be wrong.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And you can't keep him/her a secret. No matter how secret something is, something's going to leak out.

And it would go against scientific method. Research of this caliber would be worthless without full disclosure to peers for review and cross/parallel research potential.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
In conclusion, don't clone anyone unless it's absolutely necessary for some reason.

If that were held true for the advent of the blood transfusion process, how would the first person with whom it was "necessary" have had a hope of having it done. Luckily, someone (Edwin Cohn) developed a process of breaking down plasma into components and products, which made the process possible to the first person who "needed" it.

If you're talking about cloning animals, that's an invalid argument. We're already doing that. Meat-eating, anyone?

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
We breed cows, slaughter them, and eat them. We domesticated cows only to use them as tools. And about cloning, many vegetables we eat have had their DNA manipulated.

Common domesticated livestock for human consumption is, most assuredly, not cloned. Nor is the manipulation of DNA the same as cloning in the context we are discussing. There is a form of DNA cloning that involves replication of DNA strands, but it is important to note that this process cannot create a human lifeform (or any other animal) by itself. The cloning process we are discussing involves the creation or use of an egg that will use the DNA from a donor to create a lifeform. This lifeform would only have one biological parent.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Now, if it's okay to breed cows just because we like the taste of them (without saving human lives), why is it suddenly so wrong to breed or clone them to save lives??

Good point. The opponents to cloning use approaches similar to the opponents of abortion. Ironically, these are often the same people: religious fundamentalists. They understand that every inch of leverage that science gains in reaching the ground they don't want scientists treading on makes it that much harder to defend. In other words, the goal is to keep science from creating human clones. I genuinely believe that the majority of cloning opponents could actually care less about "lesser lifeforms," but defends them so they can keep the "high ground."

Breton
05-04-2003, 06:23 AM
I see absolutly no point in reproductive cloning. We certainly don't need it, except for childless couples and people who wants to bring their dead relatives back, and both of them are pretty dumb in my opinion (especially the last one). Also, there is a reason for why humans, animals, plants actually mate instead of producing clones of themselves.

Cloning for medical reasons is fine by me. But there is no reason to clone for reproductive reasons.

SkinWalker
05-04-2003, 06:30 AM
If that's true, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be, then cloning will not be profitable. Therefore, society need not worry, since it won't be pursued. However, in the event that someone does invent/discover a valid reason or need for cloning, then I would think it would be an advantage to have the science worked out.

Still, there's a lot to be said about infertile couples and the use of cloning.

Cosmos Jack
05-04-2003, 10:19 AM
SkinWalker made allot of points I would have made if I wanted to take as much time as he did :p but since he did such a good job I will only add little. ;)
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Add to that that you're an invoulantary celebrity with absolutely no private life, no matter where in the world you go. Add to that that you're a "research subject", and the only reason why you came to the world is that some scientists wanted to see if a certain technique was possible; and that if something went wrong, they would have discarded you. And when you exist, it's only for these scientists to experiment on you and develop more theories on this technique called cloning. "You do this because we're right. You do that because we're wrong (=you're acting different than the subject)." I would much rather know that I was put on this Earth for a ligament reason. Other than religion, my parents getting drunk, or the condom braking. On top of this the kid would probably have a well off adopted family. Perhaps even researchers themselves and live a fairly normal upper class life.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
The world is full of involuntary celebrities. But I maintain that should cloning humans one day prove to be safe and effective, that first clone's celebrity will be so short lived, he/she will probably be forgotten by the masses by the time he/she learns to ride a bike. No when he/she learns to ride a bike it will be on the evening news "This just in first cloned human being learned to ride a bike today. They feel off and scratched their elbow. In other news the weather will be calm and sunny today highs in the med 70s."

Dagobahn Eagle
05-04-2003, 06:07 PM
Nope. You don't. Most of your points are worth consideration, but this one is pure assumption most likely based on fear of the unknown.
It's an assumption based on the fact that many children who are born/raised from/in "different" reasons and envirounments, (rape, given up for adoption, failure to wear condoms, etc.) tend to become depressed when they learn this.

But you're right, it's just an assumption.

SkinWalker
05-04-2003, 08:54 PM
I suppose it would depend upon the stigma that society attaches to "cloned" people. When I was a young child in the 70's, I remember a black friend that told me he didn't want to be black.

It was only becuase of the "stigma" that whites attached to being physically different, not any real cause that made him feel this way.

Being a clone can be meaningless or meaningful, depending upon how we as a society decides to view it. If meaningful, that can be a good thing or a bad thing. But the environment that a child is raised in is much more complex than merely assigning a label. That same child could grow up with many issues, but as Jack pointed out, the odds of growing up in a positive environment are increased since it is likely that the child's parents (looking past biological parenthood) would be researchers or intellectuals.

I worry more about the children who are raised in alcoholic/drug addicted familial environments. Or where their parents regularly commit crimes to sustain their livelihood. I also worry about the kids who grow up in poverty or without the benifit of the socio-economic advantages that kids in more affluent neighborhoods receive.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-04-2003, 09:38 PM
I suppose it would depend upon the stigma that society attaches to "cloned" people. When I was a young child in the 70's, I remember a black friend that told me he didn't want to be black.
And I've met an Asian who didn't want to be Asian. It's so angering.

SW, tell me: What are the odds people will just accept the clone? IMO, very low. Minority ethnic groups, immigrants, minority religious groups, and challenged people all have to fight to be accepted. I don't think a clone will be any different.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-04-2003, 09:39 PM
I suppose it would depend upon the stigma that society attaches to "cloned" people. When I was a young child in the 70's, I remember a black friend that told me he didn't want to be black.
And I've met an Asian who didn't want to be Asian, to the point where she dyed her hair and put on pale make-up amd contacts to look "white". It was so angering.

SW, tell me: What are the odds people will just accept the clone? IMO, very low. Minority ethnic groups, immigrants, minority religious groups, and challenged people all have to fight to be accepted. I don't think a clone will be any different.

SkinWalker
05-05-2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

SW, tell me: What are the odds people will just accept the clone? IMO, very low. Minority ethnic groups, immigrants, minority religious groups, and challenged people all have to fight to be accepted. I don't think a clone will be any different.

I don't see why the "clone" won't be accepted. He/she will look like a human in every way. Because he/she IS human. There will be NO perceptable difference. I would think that the only way there will be prejudices against the cloned human would be if it were a black person (or other "race" targeted by prejudiced attitudes) that was cloned.

I am curious, though. What preconceived notions or prejudices do you perhaps have that would lead you to believe that others might feel the same way. I, personally, see no logical reason why anyone should think of a cloned person as any different than any other person. It would be akin to finding prejudice against a person who had prenatal surgery to correct a spina bifida or a person who was conceived through in vitro fertilization. There are over 20, 000 of these types of births each year, worldwide. They, to the best of my knowledge, lead normal lives, free of "stigma."

Louise Brown's mother gave birth to Louise's daughter on July 25, 1978. That was the very first in vitro fertilized birth. Any idea what Louise's daughter is doing these days? I haven't the foggiest either, though perhaps I could google her to find out. In the meantime, read this article (http://news.mpr.org/features/199711/20_smiths_fertility/part7/section1.shtml) and, using critical thinking, determine if there is a correlation with our fears about cloning and society's concerns then.

I personally see cloning as another, viable opportunity for those who cannot conceive children. It eliminates the need for a surrogate mother in some instances (where fertilization is the issue, rather than the ability to carry to full term). It also eliminates the need for two parents. For some, that might be a good thing. Perhaps the DNA of one parent is flawed and a genetic trait exists such as Hutchinson's disease. Using just the DNA of the "good" parent, conception can occur without fear of the child carrying on the "family tradition."

Also, the more research that is done in cloning, the better we'll understand the process of cellular generation. This will be invaluable in treating many diseases and neural injuries. Perhaps we can one day grow organs in "laboratory bodies" where the organ "thinks" it is in a body. The benefits of this are obvious to anyone waiting for a kidney or liver.

I just don't see enough evidence not to attempt cloning and to research it to the fullest. "What if" questions have their place and must be considered, but, logically, they shouldn't be restrictive without evidence. If you say that I must walk a high-wire between two buildings in order to get from one to the other, I say, "what if I fall." That is a valid what if since evidence exists of people that have fallen from high-wires and the injuries they've sustained. If you say, "what if people won't accept a cloned human?" I have to say, "what evidence exists that says they won't?"

ShadowTemplar
05-08-2003, 04:32 PM
Phizzle
Bantha

Why should we have to clone? Sure, some people might need something or they will die, but is it really right for someone to give life to a thing and just use it as a tool?

"give life to a thing" (emphasis added by me), captures my point exactly. It's not human at the stage where it's useful for therapeutic purposes.

How would you feel if you were born just so your parts could be used?

Thing is, though, it wouldn't be born. That far progressed, it's pretty useless.

That also brings up the fact that clones wouldn't be the same person. They have to grow like normal humans do. They can't have the same sense of humor or personality of that person. Identical twins are an example of this. They look alike, but they are different people because the way they act. You cannot bring up a clone just like the original person because of the expieriences.

This is actually a counter-argument to an argument against cloning. Good. Then we'll be saved the trouble later.

Your kid asks you who their father was and you respond, "Well, one was a guy who has red hair, the other was a guy with blue eyes, and the last was a genius."

This is not cloning. 'Tis gene-engineering, which is stupid for so many reasons that it doesn't even matter whether it's unethical.

You also fail to place suffecient emphasis on the difference between therapeutic cloning (clone a foetus to aquire stem cells), and reproductive cloning (clone a human being), IMO.

Breton
Imperial Spellsword

I have always thought it wrong to be able to change how your child becomes. Except if it's about changing something wrong with the child, and here I don't mean liking boys, but for example not being able to hear, not being able to use its legs, being blind from birth, etc.

Again you're not talking about cloning.

But on the other hand, where should the line go between what's ok to do and what's not? I mean, let's say someone 'fixes' a fetus that would have writing problems. Then the next would be that someone 'fixes' a fetus who's abnormally dumb. And next, there would be someone who would 'fix' a fetus that would simply be dumber than normal. And next, all children born will have an IQ of 160.

The "slippery slope argument is wrong for so many reasons. Skinwalker's post should clarify this matter. And you're still not talking about cloning.

You too fail to address the difference between gene-engineering and the two different forms of cloning.

Dagobahn Eagle
Dragon Breeder

Actually, as I child (age 4, I think) I had some speech problems.

[...]

I'd never go to the tutorials and who knows, maybe the fun I had there caused me to think language was fun, and is the reason why I still take classes in German and once took two years of classes to learn basic Spanish?

Still not talking about cloning. Yes I'll keep picking on this, because the distinction is important.

IMO, you can't change genes for the same reason as you can't go back and change history: We don't know if we're really doing the right thing.

Fact of the matter is that we don't know what the hell we're doing with the genes. But it's still not cloning.

Still no mention of the difference between reproductive and therapeutic.

CagedCrado
Jawa

Clones are just like normal people.... i think its right to clone new body parts and new organs (from the person themself, no rejections) but not really editing people.... maybe to cure disease though.

I agree here. Although gene-engineering is still not cloning. The difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning is taken into account, though. Big thumbs up for that.

SkinWalker
Rancor

The arguments against cloning, in my view, are actually invalid. There are several main arguments, one of the more promenant being that the results will be genetic "monstrosities" or horribly misdeveloped. If that is the case, then there really is no problem. Regular cloning won't happen, because scientist/cloners will not want this type of result. They just won't do it. No restrictions needed.

Another argument is against having an "identical you." As someone mentioned earlier, that won't happen. You would not only have to clone the physiology of the person, but the environment as well. Right down to the number of cloudy days and unexpected loud noises. Couldn't be done.

Playing god is another argument, but that one isn't valid for many reasons. Scientifically speaking, it is entirely invalid. Even if one buys into the whole faith meme, there are still theological reasons why it's invalid. In at least three religious documents used by the world's major religions, it mentions man being created in a diety's "image." That, in itself, would indicate that it is acceptable to take on "god-like" qualities in order to maintain and improve the human condition. Fundamentalists no doubt would fume at that statement, but it is valid none the less. Throughout history, man's attempts to improve the human condition and general knowledge have been considered "playing god," such as medical advances in surgery, blood transfusion, and family planning. Also in areas of science such as astronomy, biology, and nuclear chemistry.

Michael Shermer at
Scientific American said, "the soul of science is found in courageous thought and creative experiment, not in restrictive fear and prohibitions." I have to agree, otherwise we would still subscribe to the religious poppycock that the Sun orbits the Earth.

This is just worth repeating (this basically sums up the Skeptic article that I was about to link to).

Cosmos Jack
Battle Droid

Has anyone ever seen the movie "Gatica"?

Never has.

Personally I'm for cloning when necessary. Sci-Fi and religion has put a stigma on the subject. A case of the confused leading the blind. Not Sci-fi though just religion

I agree here. As may be expected. However "when necessairy" means "therapeutic", IMO.

The Human race has for all purposes stopped evolving. All the natural forces that encouraged our evolution are no longer present. All the people that should have kids don't and all the people that shouldn't have kids have way dam to many. If I could fined out my child’s genetic problems before birth and could choose between my child having Down Syndrome or a 200+ IQ. I would choose the 200+ IQ.

You're talking about genetic engineering, not cloning (yes, I'll keep on nagging about that, if you read all the way to the end, you will learn why).

Dagobahn Eagle
Dragon Breeder

SkinWalker, have you ever considered the impact it will have on the life of the subject and the clone? I'm surprised why no one has used this argument before.

It has. Looks like I'll have to link to the article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=13&articleID=00084EAF-2081-1E61-A98A809EC5880105) anyway. It deals exactly with this problem.

There will be no one in the world that are like you. The subject you were cloned from? No. He/she is different from you, as he/she is not cloned.

[...]

Don't even think about saying that you could keep a successful cloning secret until the clone is "mature" enough to find out the truth.

Was all of the above true for the first IVF baby? Just asking.

Phizzle
Bantha

I never said cloning cows for food was good? Cloning another life to save someone else's life by killing that person or taking their parts is just as good as the original dying in the first place. Or are you talking about the cows? If that's the case, that's not morally right either. This cloning could become very dangerous if we use it the wrong way. Just like Star Wars

It's not a human at the stage where it's development is discontinued. Off goes that argument.

SkinWalker
Rancor

I highly doubt that there will be a lot of intrusive experimentation and expect that research, study and experiments will be mostly passive.

Especially because intrusive research would contaminate the subject material. We're talking about a human here, not some animal that can be dragged into a vet's office twice a day without asking funny questions.

and would probably receive better health care than 99% of the U.S. population.

Lol. Good point.

Good point. The opponents to cloning use approaches similar to the opponents of abortion. Ironically, these are often the same people: religious fundamentalists. They understand that every inch of leverage that science gains in reaching the ground they don't want scientists treading on makes it that much harder to defend. In other words, the goal is to keep science from creating human clones. I genuinely believe that the majority of cloning opponents could actually care less about "lesser lifeforms," but defends them so they can keep the "high ground."

Again, as often with Skinwalker, this just has to be repeated.

Cosmos Jack
Battle Droid

SkinWalker made allot of points I would have made if I wanted to take as much time as he did but since he did such a good job I will only add little.

[quote]No when he/she learns to ride a bike it will be on the evening news "This just in first cloned human being learned to ride a bike today. They feel off and scratched their elbow. In other news the weather will be calm and sunny today highs in the med 70s."

Was it so with the first IVF baby?

“RELIGION is regarded by the COMMON PEOPLE as TRUE, by the WISE as FALSE, and by the RULERS as USEFUL.” -Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Couldn't say it better myself.

Dagobahn Eagle
Dragon Breeder

[quote]SW, tell me: What are the odds people will just accept the clone? IMO, very low. Minority ethnic groups, immigrants, minority religious groups, and challenged people all have to fight to be accepted. I don't think a clone will be any different.

But all the groups that you mention display outward signs of their faction affiliation. Clones would be more analogous to IVF babies, IMO.

Myself I stand as follows:

IVF/reproductive cloning/etc.: Damn stupid. For one reason: It's called "adoption". "Adoption means that you snatch some poor kid out of what will most certainly become a miserable (and presumably short) existence in some backwater banana republic, and take them to the "land of milk and honey". Infants are dying all over the world. Why not adopt some of those instead. It's a win-win situation, and alot cheaper for society too.

Therapeutic cloning: Great idea. Gets around some of the nastier parts of organ transplants. However, as with organ transplants, welfare states, such as the Scandinavian states, would have to impose restrictions on who can get state money for new organs. Is it fair, for example, that someone who has repeatedly wasted his liver by exessive drinking should get a new liver (again), when you could save half a cancer patient for the same money. But that's mainly a Scandinavian problem.

Genetic engineering: Stupid for so many reasons. Can be discussed here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=93836).

Kurgan
05-08-2003, 05:19 PM
The problem with human cloning lies in the dignity of the human person.

A clone wouldn't be any less human or any less of an individual being than an identical twin who's born naturally right now.

This is the one of the reasons I felt Star Trek Nemesis was so silly... the idea that a clone has to be "your doppelganger" and is either the same person as you or your opposite. I know they did it for conflict, but in practice its a conflict that wouldn't exist in real life. The most realistic portrayal of a clone relationship I've seen in a science fiction movie... well, Jango Fett and Boba Fett in AOTC.

In tests with animals, it takes dozens (if not hundreds) of attempts before they get it right (ie: lots of dead animals before you get a live one). You also have problems with premature aging and other deformities and abnormalities (health problems).

We're a long way off from a "super race" or "customized humans."

For now, it sounds to be quite unethical. If the process were perfected through animal testing, eventually it might be a viable alternative reproductive procedure, but with overpopulation, do we really need it?

People will argue that infertile couples will want children. Still, adoption is far cheaper (and should be made easier for couples who want them I think).

Using clones as soldiers would be just as bad as using normally birthed humans and using them for spare parts would be akin to what the Nazis did. If you could clone the parts themselves (without having to birth and kill a human to cannablize them for parts) then it would be a worthwhile technology.

Right now, genetically modfiying pigs for example, to produce human-compatible organs, seems a worthwhile endeavor.

Advances in artificial organs and limbs is a parallel technology that is also worthwhile to explore.

As for me, I don't think human cloning is immoral per se, it all depends on how it is handled and what it is used for.

I'm against abortion in general, and so the prospect of killing one innocent person to improve the lifestyle of another doesn't sit right with me.

In the next 50 years, I can see the technology being improved to the point where could be both worthwhile and ethically done, but that's just my own out of the blue prediction. ; )

Kurgan
05-08-2003, 05:28 PM
To add something quick.. from a religious perspective, a clone would be just as spiritually significant as a naturally born person. Unless you want to contend that identical twins don't have souls, or share a soul or something like that.

Random differences are GOOD for a species. If we are all the same genetically (to a point) then one disease could wipe us all out. Thus the era of "genetically perfect everybody's the same" utopias won't ever come to pass.... and shouldn't.

ShadowTemplar
05-20-2003, 09:52 AM
Kurgan
Headhunter

In tests with animals, it takes dozens (if not hundreds) of attempts before they get it right (ie: lots of dead animals before you get a live one). You also have problems with premature aging and other deformities and abnormalities (health problems).

Mere technical hurdles. If they are solved, then the problem is solved, if not, then the problem will never arise (crossref Skin's post)

For now, it sounds to be quite unethical. If the process were perfected through animal testing, eventually it might be a viable alternative reproductive procedure, but with overpopulation, do we really need it?

People will argue that infertile couples will want children. Still, adoption is far cheaper (and should be made easier for couples who want them I think).

I agree fully.

Using clones as soldiers would be [...] akin to what the Nazis did.

I don't really see why one would want to use clones as soldiers. I mean they aren't any different from normal soldiers, unless you genetically engineer them, which has nothing to do with cloning.

If you could clone the parts themselves (without having to birth and kill a human to cannablize them for parts) then it would be a worthwhile technology.

That's exactly what people are working on. Actually there is no point in breeding 'spare part babies'. Making the organs directly is faster and less bothersome ethically.

Right now, genetically modfiying pigs for example, to produce human-compatible organs, seems a worthwhile endeavor.

I have a problem with genetic modification, as it reduces the genetic variation, and thus degenerates the gene pool.

Random differences are GOOD for a species. If we are all the same genetically (to a point) then one disease could wipe us all out. Thus the era of "genetically perfect everybody's the same" utopias won't ever come to pass.... and shouldn't.

Lol. You seem to contradict what you said just a single quote ago? Or am I misreading you?

zERoCooL2479
05-30-2003, 06:22 PM
Clone Armies rule!!!

Dagobahn Eagle
05-31-2003, 01:26 AM
Just to point some things out:
I don't see why the "clone" won't be accepted. He/she will look like a human in every way. Because he/she IS human. There will be NO perceptable difference. I would think that the only way there will be prejudices against the cloned human would be if it were a black person (or other "race" targeted by prejudiced
attitudes) that was cloned.
Homosexuals are identical in appearance to heterosexuals, yet they are, to say the least, treated differently.

Look, no matter how logically you put this, the clone is different. Look, racists/facists, etc. go after people who are different. Be it the only adopted kid in the class, the only Korean in the class, the only chubby person in the class. There is no logical reason for this, it just happens. I can discuss this reasonably with any bully for hours and they'll still think that homos are "icky", sometimes just because they need someone to hate or can't accept people for what they are. And people who fall in love with others of the same gender make up 1/10 of the population. A clone: Less than 1/6 000 000 000 000 of the population. Look at the first cloned sheep, Dolly. Look at the attention every time something happened to her. And that's not even a human, is it?

And no matter how you look at it, he's different. I can come up with a ton of reasons for why he should be bullied:


Different. Duh.
Adopted. He'd/She'd have to be adopted and many adopted kids are bullied.
Celebrity status. This leads to bullying, part from envy of the attention the clone gets.
Easy target: The clone knows he or she is different. Thus, he or she is an easier target because he's already self-concious. Plus that he or she has to be watching or reading all these articles opposing his creation. If you were raised on houndreds of people telling you that you are an abomination for the way you were born. Look at how kids who are "just" adopted feels. Imagine being adopted AND cloned.


NO perceptable difference? There won't NEED TO be, because EVERYONE in the world will know who you are from watching TV.

I would think that the only way there will be prejudices against the cloned human would be if it were a black person (or other "race" targeted by prejudiced
attitudes) that was cloned.
That would add to prejudices, yes, but wouldn't be alone in causing them. BTW, you're generalizing here: "Whites", too, face racism. I hate people who forget that.

I am curious, though. What preconceived notions or prejudices do you perhaps have that would lead you to believe that others might feel the same way. I, personally, see no logical reason why anyone should think of a cloned person as any different than any other person. It would be akin to finding prejudice against a person who had prenatal surgery to correct a spina bifida or a person who was conceived through in vitro fertilization. There are over 20, 000 of these types of births each year, worldwide. They, to the best of my knowledge, lead normal lives, free of "stigma."

Again you're not talking about cloning.
He's not off-topic. The first post also addresses gene pools, so his post is not OT.

Was all of the above true for the first IVF baby? Just asking.
No, but IVF is not cloning, just "yet another way for a couple to have kids". The IVF kid wasn't identical to another kid.

SkinWalker
05-31-2003, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
The IVF kid wasn't identical to another kid.

Nor will the clone be to it's "parent." Environment influences enough differences to ensure that.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
No, but IVF is not cloning, just "yet another way for a couple to have kids".

Ah... but the same stigma that you're suggesting was postulated about Louise Brown. Unless you read the June issue of Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=00067946-1A8B-1EBC-BDC0809EC588EEDF), you might not have known that she is a 25 year old nursery school aid. In fact, this article so closely illustrates my point, that you might have thought I read it first had my original post not preceded it's issue.

A "cloned" person, should the process become possible (it appears to have it's problems with primate species for the moment), will not be distinguishable from other persons. Certainly, there will be media hype. Certainly, the name will be familiar to most people. But this celebrity period will be brief and undoubtedly expire long before the child enters grade school.

A person who receives ridicule for "race" has the outward appearance that gives he or she away. A person who gets teased for being "chubby" has a more round appearance than the teasers. The homosexual who is bullied for being an "abboration" is so only because he or she has made his or her sexual orientation known, perhaps openly or perhaps by exhibiting stereotypical characteristics.

A clone will, for all outward appearances, look like any other person. There will not be a scarlet C sewn to his or her shirt. The name may even be common enough to blend in.... Louise Brown certainly isn't a unique moniker.

In short, your arguement that cloning shouldn't be permitted on the grounds that "celebrity status" will irrepairably damage the child or even affect the child in any harmful way, is invalid. If it were, it would be wrong for any celebrity to conceive a child for fear of media hype. Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's daughters both attended grade schools and institutions of higher learning without damage. GW Bush's daughters are able to score booze on fake ID's.... Baby Jessica stunned the world with her trip down the well... She's now 15 years old and lives in East Texas.

Invalid. It's a Strawman Caricature.

But it may not matter for the time being since it appears that cloning of primate species (that includes us, ya'll.) has a unique problem. The cloning process inadvertantly removes tiny spindles of protein that evenly pull the cells apart to ensure even distribution of chromosomes. Without these protein spindles, chromosome distribution is done unevenly.

This would seem to be an educational setback, however, and once more study is done, it would be reasonable to assume that the cloning process will improve as well as become safe.

The REAL problem, the one you would read about if you click the link above, is that without government support of cloning, the research is likely to be "market driven" and thus will proceed without strict scrutiny and control measures. This may lead to some of the same problems that IVF encountered, such as premature births, multiple births, decreased birthweight, increased likelihood of birth defects. All problems that could have been more closely examined, predicted, or even solved with government support. In fact, if they couldn't have, the likelihood of IVF being used so prevalently in the past 25 years would have been much lower.

kipperthefrog
09-23-2004, 08:33 PM
we cloned a sheep!

we may even clone humans!
someday we could have the power to design our own babies to be smarter, stronger and prettier.

we may even create cows that produce more milk, and other wonderous things!

what do you say?

El Sitherino
09-23-2004, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
ows that produce more milk we can make them produce more milk with the use of steriods, infact that's what a lot of the milk you drink is, hormone induced lactation.

kipperthefrog
09-23-2004, 09:05 PM
Interesting. the cow example was just one thing we can do if we could create our own life forms!

the point of this thread is SHOULD we take control over nature?

in one hand, we shouldn't:

Most people would fear ethics (right and wrong) I dont see anything WRONG with genetic engineering, but i fear safety! what if we create a new desiese? we MUST be careful.

on the OTHER hand, maybie if we can break through the safety issues and acheive great things! like clone replacement organs for people, re engineer animals to do better things for us! get rid of parasites, the posiblities are endless!

personally i dont think it's safe. it may not be worth it!

SkinWalker
09-23-2004, 09:52 PM
Some very good discussion came from a short thread some time back... I merged it with the new thread. Read and discuss.

primalunderdog
10-12-2004, 04:09 PM
we have all ready cloned a bladder,i don't know about anything else,but i think that a cloned baby is WRONG because god ment for a child to be nertured(exuse my spelling) in a womb,not a fake womb.Now if somthing is wrong with the women and she could not support a child i think that would be OK.Just my thoughts.

Spider AL
10-12-2004, 05:28 PM
Having read this thread, I can see nearly all the arguments regarding cloning laid out very neatly... But I feel the most damning argument against cloning is the risk of immoral usage on the part of scientists.

But let's be honest and clear: Scientists have been using their breakthroughs in technology for amoral purposes since time immemorial. Weapons technology, disgusting testing on live animal subjects, etcetera.

Therefore if one is to "argue against cloning" one must argue against all scientific advances because they are ALL misused by UTTERLY evil sods. One must argue against science.

We should lobby against the existence of evil sods, not against cloning, which would merely be a tool.

Either way though, our lobbying will be ineffectual. There will always be evil sods, and cloning will become a viable technology because even if our countries stopped developing it, others would not. And even if all countries stopped, there would be dissident scientists working on it within the stalled nations.

Right now, genetically modfiying pigs for example, to produce human-compatible organs, seems a worthwhile endeavor.I take enormous issue with this. The idea of creating a lifeform whose only purpose is to die to provide raw materials to patch up another lifeform, arbitrarily assigned a greater value of "worth", is perhaps even more atrociously amoral than battery farming is, discounting the horrible conditions in which battery stock are kept.

People might say it's no different than eating meat to prolong one's life... I take issue with that too. We are omnivorous animals. It part of our NATURE to consume the flesh of other lifeforms.

But to create a life without hope of life, without individual rights? That is creating a slave organism and the ultimate insult. Using a living thing as one might use a car, or a microwave. Living things are not toys, they are not machines. They live as we do, and feel pain, thirst and go insane without mental activity, just as we do. If we did this we would become the evil alien race in every sci-fi movie you've ever seen. We would become cheap movie villains with latex foreheads. We would lose all moral high ground and admit finally that there is no good in man, only raw, ugly self-interest and self-deluding sociopathy.

If this day should ever come to pass, when other creatures are genetically formed by our will only to die by our hand to prolong our sick existences, I may go postal and take as many people with me as possible before I exit a world I would not enjoy living in. Or has that day already come?.. Modern farming is similar, after all. It's only a short step forward, to postal-time.

kipperthefrog
10-12-2004, 07:05 PM
I too agree that cloning and genetic engineering is another step in human acheivements!

its like the discovery of fire

then the discovery of electicity

then atomic energy

discovery of the building blocks of life is next!

imagine what we can DO!

I say we TAKE the oputunity to find a way to make people smarter, more atractive (prettier) and more athletic!

we can geneticly re-engineer ourselves to have high motabolism so we can say goodbye to the obesity problem!

when god suposedly created man, he must have been tired after a week's work, and therefore made man imperfect! Now WE can iron out ALL the wrinkles!

we can also fix the flaws in the animal world! re-engineer mosquitos not to itch when they bite! re-engineer nature as we see fit! the possibilities are ENDLESS!

Tyrion
10-12-2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I too agree that cloning and genetic engineering is another step in human acheivements!

its like the discovery of fire

then the discovery of electicity

then atomic energy

discovery of the building blocks of life is next!

...all which led to ceaseless bloodshedding, which has caused the animal kingdom to effectively crumble. Not that I'm neccessarily against your point, but we have to keep that point of view in mind.

imagine what we can DO!

I say we TAKE the oputunity to find a way to make people smarter, more atractive (prettier) and more athletic!

we can geneticly re-engineer ourselves to have high motabolism so we can say goodbye to the obesity problem!

I severely disaprove of this practice. Sure it sounds fine in theory, but it'll only cause a much larger gap between the rich and the poor.

when god suposedly created man, he must have been tired after a week's work, and therefore made man imperfect! Now WE can iron out ALL the wrinkles!

If there is a God who has unfathomable power over the universe, I'd hazard a guess that we shouldn't try to do something He omited from his work schedule...

we can also fix the flaws in the animal world! re-engineer mosquitos not to itch when they bite! re-engineer nature as we see fit! the possibilities are ENDLESS!

Considering the harm we've done to Nature passively, it's probably not the wisest to try to be active in changing something that has taken a billion years to perfect.

El Sitherino
10-12-2004, 07:25 PM
also, isn't the toxin that a mosquito releases that causes the itch also one that helps keep bacteria, from the outside, from seeping into the opening and causing an infection? or was that a bee sting?

kipperthefrog
10-12-2004, 07:39 PM
I severely disaprove of this practice. Sure it sounds fine in theory, but it'll only cause a much larger gap between the rich and the poor.

how will it cuase a bigger gap betweeen the rich and poor? I say it will bring them closer together cuase today the rich are mainly thin, (look at all the famus models and singers and actors)

when genetic engineering comes to practice, we'll ALL be thin! no one gets left out!

If there is a God who has unfathomable power over the universe, I'd hazard a guess that we shouldn't try to do something He omited from his work schedule...

Such a god SHOULD have made this world perfect in the first place! (sure he DID once, but ruined it for generations to come at the Adam and Eve episode over one little fruit! Does THAT sound merciful to YOU?) Now WE can be the creators!

Considering the harm we've done to Nature passively, it's probably not the wisest to try to be active in changing something that has taken a billion years to perfect.

nature is NOT perfect.
we have not done harm to nature we simply made it liveable! cutting down trees is an example of "harm" isnt it? it is not comfortable to live in a forest with a rock for a pillow! we cut down the trees to buils houses! We made only IMPROVMENTS to our world! We have not yet altered nature to perfection yet! we still have bugs to work with along with pollution problemswitch will soon be fixed with recycling and alternative fuel!

Tyrion
10-12-2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
how will it cuase a bigger gap betweeen the rich and poor? I say it will bring them closer together cuase today the rich are mainly thin, (look at all the famus models and singers and actors)when genetic engineering comes to practice, we'll ALL be thin! no one gets left out!


Try more along the lines of this-treatment-is-reserved-for-the-rich. This stuff can potentially transform you into a superhuman, do you really think the rich will let regular people have it?

Such a god SHOULD have made this world perfect in the first place! (sure he DID once, but ruined it for generations to come at the Adam and Eve episode over one little fruit! Does THAT sound merciful to YOU?) Now WE can be the creators!

Mind you, I'm agnostic, but I still think you're being a bit too arrogant. Remember, we're talking about the human race, if we were to become the manipulators stupidty would be like a child in an unattended candy store.

nature is NOT perfect.
we have not done harm to nature we simply made it liveable! cutting down trees is an example of "harm" isnt it? it is not comfortable to live in a forest with a rock for a pillow! we cut down the trees to buils houses! We made only IMPROVMENTS to our world! We have not yet altered nature to perfection yet! we still have bugs to work with along with pollution problemswitch will soon be fixed with recycling and alternative fuel!

Made it liveable? It was plenty liveable before homo-sapien sapiens even existed. We didn't live long in comparison to the present, but nature was still in equilibrium. By the way, by "our world" do you mean the human world? I'm talking about the entire world, animals and vegetation included. We've done alot of harm; we've caused various species to become extint, cause global pollution problems, and made certain areas of the world inhabitable only by cockroaches(Chernobyl, for expample).

kipperthefrog
10-12-2004, 08:05 PM
Try more along the lines of this-treatment-is-reserved-for-the-rich. This stuff can potentially transform you into a superhuman, do you really think the rich will let regular people have it?

why not? there are a lot of things that the regular people can have!

Tyrion
10-12-2004, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
why not? there are a lot of things that the regular people can have!

I imagine that superhuman qualities is one thing that the rich wouldn't be liberal in supplying to the masses.

kipperthefrog
10-12-2004, 08:24 PM
they will give streingh and speed to workers to make them more efficient in productivity! scientists smarter to increase research and development! the rich have much to gain by letting everyone else have powers too! all the better to serve them.

they will make more money if the sell motabilism stuff to every one than if they just sold it to the rich, for there are more of us than there are of them!

El Sitherino
10-12-2004, 09:22 PM
you're over looking one thing, the genetic manipulation would cost thousands of dollars. now I dunno about you, but I'd rather spend the 10,000 (possible lowest it'll be for years if it's ever harnessed and used) on other things, a car, buying stuff for the baby itself. this **** won't cost 5 bucks, it's thousands of dollars. All medical "marvels" of this standard costs thousands, hell invitro fertilsation costs a thousand an egg.

El Sitherino
10-12-2004, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
nature is NOT perfect.
we have not done harm to nature we simply made it liveable! cutting down trees is an example of "harm" isnt it? it is not comfortable to live in a forest with a rock for a pillow! we cut down the trees to buils houses! We made only IMPROVMENTS to our world! We have not yet altered nature to perfection yet! we still have bugs to work with along with pollution problemswitch will soon be fixed with recycling and alternative fuel! sorry, but that's utter bull, and human arrogance at it's worst.
People have lived fine for thousands of years perfectly without having all the crap we have today. We don't NEED nor do we require all this crap we have to survive. We've also ruined the enviroment for our own convenience. Humanity does not need to ability to "super" itself, it will only cause more trouble and I now see this even more clearly having seen your ignorance to life and biological science.

SkinWalker
10-12-2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Spider AL
We should lobby against the existence of evil sods, not against cloning, which would merely be a tool.

To that, I cannot disagree. Cloning is can be no more "evil" than the crossbow was during medieval times. People just naturally fear that which they are know little about if you ask me.

Originally posted by Spider AL
But to create a life without hope of life, without individual rights? That is creating a slave organism and the ultimate insult. Using a living thing as one might use a car, or a microwave. Living things are not toys, they are not machines.

But does this not describe domesticated animals like cattle, sheep, or swine? Isn't a saddled horse merely a form of technology? We've interfered in the natural lives of animals for our own purposes for around 10,000 years. Growing pigs that can provide an bacon as well as a few new heart valves that were clogged by previous strips of that tasty source of cholesterol seems like a fair trade to me.

Spider AL
10-13-2004, 02:25 AM
But does this not describe domesticated animals like cattle, sheep, or swine? Isn't a saddled horse merely a form of technology? We've interfered in the natural lives of animals for our own purposes for around 10,000 years. Growing pigs that can provide an bacon as well as a few new heart valves that were clogged by previous strips of that tasty source of cholesterol seems like a fair trade to me.I did touch on the idea of domestication in my last post... And while enough similarities exits for it to me merely a short step towards direct genetic modification, that step exists nonetheless.

Parisitism occurs in nature. Even to the point where ants farm aphids to produce "milk". It's arguable therefore that our parisitic dependance on farm animals, livestock etcetera, is not wholly outside our nature as human animals, and therefore has little care for our purely human concept of morality.

What does NOT happen in nature and what has never happened, is the intentional direct genetic manipulation of an organism's offspring to provide fodder. Not new animals, merely fodder. It just so happens that in this case the fodder would be alive...

The example of selective breeding may pop up here as being exactly the same, but it isn't. Nature places limits on the selective breeder that cannot be surmounted. One will never realistically be able to... breed a pig with human-compatible organs using only existing, unaltered pigs, for example. Selective breeding is indeed morally questionable, but it's still only the manipulation of an existing species, an existing TYPE of animal, within the scope of its own stock. Yes, huge changes can be effected, but since this takes many many generations there is both less individual responsibility on the shoulders of each breeder in the chain, and also a longer period in which to question the morality of the direction of the breeding.

If we were to genetically modify a pig for organ-compatibility, we would no longer merely parisitically taking advantage of another animal's EXISTING qualities, we would be creating a creature whose fate is utterly preordained by our wills, containing exactly the right balance of qualities to suit US, not the creature's evolutionary requirements, its wellbeing or ability to function. More insidious, far-reaching and rapid than mere selective breeding, we would on a whim, in an INSTANT, be creating a slave. A slave without hope of escape from bondage. Without hope of furthering itself or its race. It wouldn't HAVE a race. Each animal would merely be an organ bank, UTTERLY subservient to our whims. It's as amoral as... as... cutting someone's brain out and using it as a central processing unit to run a city.

Just about the most utterly wrong thing we have ever done as a race.

kipperthefrog
10-13-2004, 05:52 AM
what if we could just clone the parts and not a whole animal!

Spider AL
10-13-2004, 06:29 AM
THAT would be great Kip. There's nothing immoral about cloning a kidney. Cloning a brain, cloning anything with a brain would be littered with moral pitfalls, but cloning a liver would be like cloning a... microwave oven. Fine.

Now all we have to do is come to a moral decision regarding the research that goes INTO growing an organ in isolation. Wouldn't it involve stem-cell research or something? Or is that just nerve-structures. Hum. I feel some reading-up coming on.

Crazy_dog no.3
10-13-2004, 08:28 AM
The only 2 arguement I can see for cloning are:
-medical research
-Saving endangered species

I'm all for cloning being researched and organs being cloned to for those who need them. But wide-spread cloning? No. No way.
It takes away our uniqueness. But if there's wide-spread cloning we lose our exclusive physical features. They're not exclusive any more. And, to me anyway, that seems wrong.

Spider AL
10-13-2004, 08:40 AM
But if there's wide-spread cloning we lose our exclusive physical features. They're not exclusive any more. And, to me anyway, that seems wrong.I don't know... If I had a double in the world I don't think I'd feel any less individual as a result. It's my thoughts, desires and experiences that make me an individual, not my face or body-type.

Besides, we're not as unique as we like to think. People can label different social and psychological groups with a remarkable degree of accuracy.

And remember, you're unique... just like everybody else. ;)

kipperthefrog
10-13-2004, 08:52 AM
But if there's wide-spread cloning we lose our exclusive physical features. They're not exclusive any more. And, to me anyway, that seems wrong.

I say clones are no different than twins! Twins dont take away our exlusive physical features.

do you kill the second twin becuase he is EXACTLY the same as the first twin born?

some will probably clone someone dead anyway. we probably need more people like einstein!

Now all we have to do is come to a moral decision regarding the research that goes INTO growing an organ in isolation. Wouldn't it involve stem-cell research or something? Or is that just nerve-structures. Hum. I feel some reading-up coming on.

whatever stem-cell research is, I say any research that goes INTO cloning organs in isolation would be worthwhie! like the progress of all technoligies, it will be a gradual process.

(what IS stem cell researh)

EDIT

insane sith

sorry, but that's utter bull, and human arrogance at it's worst.
People have lived fine for thousands of years perfectly without having all the crap we have today. We don't NEED nor do we require all this crap we have to survive. We've also ruined the enviroment for our own convenience.
sorry if you got the wrong idea, but i think the misunderstanding is HERE: your talking about the enviormental problems and im talking about progress:

people live a lot longer now than in aincent times! 24 was considered old age thousands of years ago! now people can live to their 80's

sure there are envirmental problems, but there are people who are working to save earth as well!