It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Genetic Ownership

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:36 PM
I would like to explore the thought of dna being written as a code and if the origional coder should hold any ownership over his creation if it is the case that dna was written and not just evolved from x amount of yrs of life. So if possible let's try to explore this from the angle that dna was written.

I think that if we look around today at coders and how today's society views such property we cab see that laws are in place to protect the information. That brings up two possibilities that either there is some kind of galatic law that protects us or that the system we were created in is too complex and protected to penetrate physically.

Look at our current views of what we call clones and how many of us think it would be ok to clone and harvest for organs. More precise cloning is being done to create specific parts and that allows our concious to get past the possible life implications involved in a complete clone.

Now let's say that i am able to put together a series of codes that would create a being like us. What rights of ownership do you think i would have? What would be the outer bounds of what i could do with my property? Things like training,education,work,food and sex all come to mind but where would we draw the lines? Could i destroy my creation and not be a murderer?

How about the brain and others being able to connect wirelesly to my creation. Would that be legal? Suppose my neighbor found a way to communicate to my creation and convinced it to kill me or someone else. Who is then responsible? Is it me for not for seeing the possible hack? Is it the neighbor for there role in the murder? Is it the creations fault for being decieved?

So many angles we can explore here. I just hope some can understand my line of thinking and debate this with me.

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:13 PM
If we were produce clones of ourselves for harvesting organs, then I think they would need to disable the higher brain functions of the clone, so it does nit become self-aware. That way it would simply be a non-sentient living storehouse for organs.

If not, then it would become something of my identical twin, but with its own memories and personalities (just as my identical twin would have), and I would have no rights over harvesting its organs, just like I would have no right to harvest my hypothetical twin's organs.

edit on 1/12/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:51 PM
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

ok but what happens when someone comes along and enables higher brain functions again?

Do you see the similarties in this and the story of the garden of eden?

What if all it took was a simple combonation of protiens that were found in certain foods in the garden and one came along and pointed out that food?

It actually ties in directly with our yearning for knowledge and desire for truth.

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:58 PM
According to intellectual property law, it is already commonplace to take a specific DNA sequence (such as those of genetically modified organisms), and claim ownership over it. Companies (especially in the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors) love the fact that they can patent genes: Ontario Hospital Suing Owners of Gene Patent

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:51 PM
a reply to: FamCore

i know a guy that claims ownership of what they are trying to lay stakes too.

new topics

top topics

log in