my views on cloning and genetic engineering

im quite happy with the idea because all of the wars hunting and general stupidity humanity has caused does'nt do great things for other life-forms here why cant we bring more life than we can take

THIS IS A POLL! PLEASE REPLY WITH YES OR NO

[edit on 13-1-2005 by klain]

YES!!!!
i agree with what you're saying. i'm surprised i didn't think of it myself.

nobody replies to things like this though hrm come on guys

That makes me a no then.

I'm all for theraputic cloning for stem cells, that is an aspect of medical science that deserves as much funding as it can get. I would even agree with genetic engineering as a use for bolstering the human immune system, removal of potential cancer causing genes etc., but not as a tool for over the top superficial parents to choose the colour of their kids eyes or their sex or any of that, designer babies are a bad idea.

What I'm not for is the use of cloning and genetic engineering purely just to increase the general population, especially as this will just give legitimacy for governments all over the world to start cloning soldiers, assuming attempts havent already been made. Mankind already creates more life than it takes, the world population has been increasing ever since the aftermath of the bubonic plague in the 1600's. If I remember my school days it was increasing rather rapidly as well.

*EDIT : Seems like I may have misinterpreted your original post, you were talking about other life on earth right? In that case it's still a no, our punishment for mistreating the life on this planet should be that we no longer are able to admire it for the diversity and beuty it often brings to our surroundings. And when we have managed to get rid of all other life through continued boning of the environment (apart from cockroaches those things'll probly outlive us, get smart and build a ship to get off this rock once and for all) then perhaps we will realise that life is prescious and how naff everything is without it. Plus there wont be any meat for us, so no burgers which = lose. Cloning wildlife to restock its numbers is not a solution, just a temporary fix.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Terminal Velocity]

No for cloning

Yes for GE only for plants to make them more disease resistant etc

Terminal says:

"That makes me a no then. I'm all for theraputic cloning for stem cells, that is an aspect of medical science that deserves as much funding as it can get. I would even agree with genetic engineering as a use for bolstering the human immune system, removal of potential cancer causing genes etc., but not as a tool for over the top superficial parents to choose the colour of their kids eyes or their sex or any of that, designer babies are a bad idea."

Well, wait a minute. When it comes to developing a child with "bolstering an immune system, removal of potential cancer cusing genes, etc", isn't that a "designer baby"? How about genetic markers for obseity, alopecia, dental caries, Kreuznach's Syndrome, sickle cell anemia, and other genetic diseases? How about developing a kid with the genes to keep chromosomal telomeres from unraveling so she can have a life expectancy of ~400-500 years?

Those considerations make things like eye color seem rather petty, wouldn't you agree? I mean, terms like "over the top" and "superficial parents" are kind of subjective; what is irrelevant for you and me might be v ery important to another parent.

Don't get me wrong, Term; I'm not shooting your ideas down, because I kind of agree with them. However, I think we should all realize that we're on a slippery slope here.

"What I'm not for is the use of cloning and genetic engineering purely just to increase the general population, especially as this will just give legitimacy for governments all over the world to start cloning soldiers, assuming attempts havent already been made."

I agree; that sounds pretty nasty. But countries like Japan and Germany are facing severe depopulation issues; should they be constrained from replenishing their own kind? Anyway, large armies are no longer a major issue; Saddam Hussein had the fourth-largest army in the world, and look how well that helped him!

"Mankind already creates more life than it takes, the world population has been increasing ever since the aftermath of the bubonic plague in the 1600's."

Agreed. but I don't think the issue is genetic engineering to make more people, but to make better people.

Of course, different people define "better" people in different ways....

Actually, in the final analysis, your opinion -- or mine -- doesn't make any difference any more.

The genie is already out of the bottle; the toothpaste is out of the tube; you cannot make the clock tick backwards.

Genetic engineering, even including human and probably transgenic engineering, is within the realm of possibility; the only question is whether or not the leaders will be the USA and the UK -- or Singapore and the PRC.

The United States has been the breadbasket of the planet for at least a half-century now; if we do not improve our crops, someone else will; from a biotechnological aspect, we'll be a third world country

Yes, to an extent.

I think we should only clone certain aspects of the human body, like for organ transplant, asnd clone endangered and/or extinct species (saying we have the genetic material to do it).
As for genetic engenering, I'm all for it.

its the church getting in the way again of progress one example:

fossils found about a 100 years or so ago were thought to be from some demon so the church condemd them untill some clever person came along and said no these are the imprints of things living many years ago

its things like this which halt are progress think of all the things that can be learned so we as a race can reach our full potentual and its sad to say that these small minded individuals get in the way