posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:18 PM
What is cloning anyway, and have movies about the subject been honest and truthful about it?
To me, it all pertains to biological factors. In the hollywtf-movie, if someone dies, he can be 'resurrected' as the new clone, and remembers having
died this or that many times.
This is of course nonsense. That's not how it works, and you can't 'become immortal' just by cloning. A clone will have a different soul from
It's amazing, that no one in this thread has yet looked at this from the perspective of the SOUL, only from the perspective of biology.
I mean, what does it matter -how- a body is manufactured/born/created, as long as a soul can incarnate into it? And it's that soul that is the human,
not the body. Animal soul structure is less advanced (I made a long post about what I think animal souls are a long time ago, so you can find it
somewhere in ATS, if you really want to know about this in more detail), so it matters even less. Of course the 'personality' would not be the same,
but animals don't really have a personality per se.
Now a lot of dog-owners and other pet-worshippers start screaming that their pet definitely has a personality, et cetera. What I mean is, that they
are animals first, species second, breed third, and only then they are 'the name' (which they really aren't).
Humans see dogs as 'name' first, then 'breed' (if the dog is lucky), then .. 'human'! They don't even see them as animals, and they ignore
their animal-species-breed-specific needs, and just give the dogs 'name'-specific fulfillment. Instead of exercize, discipline, affection, they just
give 'affection, affection, affection', as Cesar Millan tends to say.
Animals live in the moment, and they mostly -react-. They don't rationalize, and they don't ponder the future or try to relive the past. They do
have their invididualistic quirks and things (which are usually just symptoms created by humans mistreating them that the owners find 'cute' or
'adorable'), but basically, to the same stimuli, the same animal will pretty much react the same. They might manifest that reaction differently, but
a dog can't be decide whether he's scared of fire or whether he tries to control unstable energy in another dog or a human being, unless he is
specifically trained not to. In that sense, they don't have 'personalities', that would be completely different than all other dogs. A dog can't
be disinterested about food and walking, for example (except as a symptom of having been mistreated by humans, but that's not 'personality',
that's a problem). It can't choose to become interested in astronomy or programming in C++. It can't thus really develop a true 'personality'.
(There are exceptions, that I explained in the post I mentioned before, that happen when a dog is living its last incarnation as an animal, before
incarnating as human the first time - when the other half of his soul has joined the half that is still living in the dog body (when other dog died,
of course), and that's when we encounter dogs that 'seem to understand everything we tell them' and 'who seem so human' - but other than those
exceptions, a dog really has no 'personality').
Now, I used dogs as examples, but the basic principles of course apply to pretty much any animals (just remember that dolphins and whales, for
example, are not animals).
So, cloning a BODY, as long as it is a functional and healthy body, and as long as a soul can incarnate in it normally, shouldn't be a problem of any
signifigance, as long as it is done ethically (without injuring, harming or hurting any living being in any way, and especially humans without their
Though I don't see what the benefit of cloning is, when you can just overpopulate the planet with bratty kids (that the parents have no clue how to
raise correctly, despite Supernanny and Jo Frost's teachings), idiot humans (no comment there) or out-of-control animals (that the pet-'owners'
don't know how to raise, treat or control properly, despite Dog Whisperer and Cesar Millan's teachings) as much as you want with the natural method
already, besides creating humans that look exactly alike, so that they can be used for evil purposes by TPTB (which is what ATS should be all about
anyway - discussing the conspiracies, not just this everyday clone-chat).
IF, however, you can do cloning, like they do it in SCI-FI and the reality of other planets, then that's different.
In my opinion, what they call 'cloning', isn't really what cloning truly is. So it still takes a long time, and it still means you are using wombs,
and you still need to use sperm and whatnot. Just seems like a more cumbersome way to achieve what could be achieved with the natural method anyway.
What my idea of cloning is, that you take someone, an adult human being, and in a few minutes, you can just create an identical copy of him/her. The
problem, of course, is again, SOUL. Will you invite someone to incarnate this adult human being (pretty unnaturally, I may add), or will you leave it
without a soul altogether? Will you make it remote-controllable, or are you planning to somehow create self-awareness without a soul (impossible,
despite what "The Terminator (1984)"'s plot says)? Or are you going to expand the original owner's soul, so that now this one soul controls two
bodies? Or are you going to transfer the soul inbetween bodies, depending on what you need to do, and thus making long-distance travels very
convenient and fast?
Or are the clones mere projections of the original individual, that the individual can control at will, and which can then just be joined back to the
original (like in ninja games or some E.T. allegedly-true-stories)? Is the clone going to be a 'biological, programmable robot', or ..
Well, as can be seen, my ideas of cloning differ from this boring planet's boring views, but I wanted to bring this thread different perspectives
that (I felt) it desperately needed.