Cloning : The Cloning Trap, Loss of Psyche, and False Desires To Live Lies

I wish I could count just how many times my boss has said the statement that has always irritated me.

I wish I could clone you.

I've worked there for sixteen years now so this is a lengthy employment.

It is one of those statements I wished she had never uttered ever because of my beliefs on cloning.

My boss says it because of my work ethic, my beliefs, and my ability to handle customer complaints, as well as my unique abilities to deal with crisis situations and adapt.

I do not support cloning because to me it is man playing "God" through the false belief of science controlling society, not that science is false belief, but that they believe if they can do it, that they have every right to do it, because the shareholders, and or corporation says so.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Cloning

Cloning in biology is the process of similar producing populations of genetically identical individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually.

Cloning in biotechnology refers to processes used to create copies of DNA fragments (molecular cloning), cells (cell cloning), or organisms.

The term also refers to the production of multiple copies of a product such as digital media or software.

The term clone is derived from κλών, the Greek word for "trunk, branch", referring to the process whereby a new plant can be created from a twig.

In horticulture, the spelling clon was used until the twentieth century; the final e came into use to indicate the vowel is a "long o" instead of a "short o".

Since the term entered the popular lexicon in a more general context, the spelling clone has been used exclusively.

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it, responsibility after all is a higher demand of one's self to do the right things, while ignoring those things which should not be done.

While sitting at my friends house we began this discussion about cloning that she and I have had now, for fourteen years, about cloning, we happen to be watching Godsend right now.

Amazon Review :

While it preys on the emotions of grieving parents, Godsend serves up a few minor shocks in an otherwise frightless supernatural thriller.

Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos are the once-happy couple whose 8-year-old son (Cameron Bright) has been struck and killed by a car.

When a fertility and genetics expert (Robert De Niro) offers them an opportunity to resurrect their boy through a secret, illegal cloning procedure, they don't know that the doctor's hidden agenda will have horrifying repercussions when the "new" son passes his eighth birthday and begins having "night terrors" about another boy who'd suffered a similarly unfortunate fate.

Any casual viewer will catch the plot twist early, after which Godsend presses its flimsy premise past the breaking point.

There are some eerie moments involving the kid (and Bright has effectively disturbing presence), but wretched dialogue and derivative plotting undermine the talented leads, all of whom seem to be slumming in the B-movie cellar.

--Jeff Shannon

Godsend Trailer


My comment to my boss has always been because of my beliefs on cloning, but as well because it comes from my beliefs in psychology, the differences between an original person and their cloned replacement, and those people who seek out to play "God".

I tell my boss every time that a clone would not be me, because it does not live the same life experiences, has not read the same books, nor has it had to deal with different situations like I have, and while I realize it was more or less a compliment, it grates on me, because I know what I know about the fact that a clone is a physical reproduction, not a complete copy of a person, the mentality of this carbon copy will not be the same, nor will it react just like me, or you if you decide to be cloned.

People have this desire to be cloned believing falsely that it will extend their life, or the lives of their loved ones, whether it be a human, or a pet who they consider a loved one.

While those scientist who push for cloning believe they might be able to reproduce this copy of you, might be able to copy down your life story and dictate it to the clone by rote, and dress this individual who looks like your twin, they cannot control how this facsimile of your cellular reproduction might react, think, or believe based upon the ID.

Quote from : Wikipedia : ID

Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described.

According to this model, the uncoordinated instinctual trends are the "id"; the organised realistic part of the psyche is the "ego," and the critical and moralising function the "super-ego."

Even though the model is "structural" and makes reference to an "apparatus", the id, ego, and super-ego are functions of the mind rather than parts of the brain and do not necessarily correspond one-to-one with actual somatic structures of the kind dealt with by neuroscience.

The concepts themselves arose at a late stage in the development of Freud's thought: the structural model was first discussed in his 1920 essay "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" and was formalised and elaborated upon three years later in his "The Ego and the Id."

Freud's proposal was influenced by the ambiguity of the term "unconscious" and its many conflicting uses.

The terms "id," "ego," and "super-ego" are not Freud's own.

They are latinisations by his translator James Strachey.

Freud himself wrote of "das Es," "das Ich," and "das Über-Ich"—respectively, "the It," "the I," and the "Over-I" (or "Upper-I"); thus to the German reader, Freud's original terms are more or less self-explanatory.

Freud borrowed the term "das Es" from Georg Groddeck, a German physician to whose unconventional ideas Freud was much attracted (Groddeck's translators render the term in English as "the It").

As the old proverb says The road to Hell was paved with good intentions.

My beliefs on this are not only this because of the playing "God" but because of history.

I am speaking of course of the Nazi's and the research of Joseph Mengele, and the desire of creating the fair-haired blonde and blue-eyed master race.

My best friend, the one who I have been discussing this unique discussion with for fourteen years, and I have been sharing our ideas back and forth because of our differences of mind.

We agree to disagree and as friends we love discussing many varied topics.

There are other movies out there about cloning and the science, psychology, and the laws.

The Island Trailer


Gattaca trailer


Island of Dr Moreau (1996)


The laws of this science are out there and nothing brings to mind more so about cloning than Dolly the sheep, the sheep in Scotland, who was cloned, just because they could.

Dolly the Cloned Sheep


According to the experiment of Dolly it allegedly shortened the sheep's lifespan.

Instead of living twelve years, she lived only six years, so a half-life exists.

So, do you believe in cloning, long life because of it, and playing "God", or not?

And some people believe clones do not have souls, not something I believe.

I am looking for a interesting conversation between all of us and there is no right or wrong.

I find it interesting nonetheless to share ideas on ATS with all of you members.

There are many thoughts on this controversial topic and I am sure we will have all sorts of fun discussing it, as well all do here in sharing ideas, thoughts, and knowledge.

Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago when I caught Stargate for the first time in a while. The 'asgard' are displayed as benevolent beings who move their consciousnesses from clone to clone. Throughout the series they are displayed as beings we should look up to or emulate. It saddens me a little. Great post, S&F

[edit on 3/7/10 by CSquared288]

Cloning isn't playing God. Cloning is perfectly natural. Cloning is nearly identical to what happens to twins. Fine by me if they want to clone humans. I wouldn't mind seeing some extinct animals cloned.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
According to the experiment of Dolly it allegedly shortened the sheep's lifespan.

Instead of living twevle years, she lived only six years, so a half-life exists.

When I hear cloning I always think about the movie The boys from Brazil

I think Dolly had issues becuase of the age of the sheep they cloned. If I'm not mistaken I read someplace that it showed a flaw in the whole cloning issue. The cells they used created a situation where Dolly at a very young age [6 Years] developed signs of health problems that a sheep would not see until they were around 12 years of age. She was 6 years old but....

The sheep they took them from was around 6 years old. 6+6=12 So what does this possibly tell us?



[edit on 7-3-2010 by SLAYER69]

Alright, when I was my own boss a few years back, I use to get frustrated with some of my workers and actually said to some of them "once cloning tech comes to fruition, you guys are going to be out of work".

As I have told you before SKL, I am a voracious reader of Sci Fi, so I could go on about the numerous theories or ideas the authors had. But I do not know what the future holds for this side of science. I have thought about it a little bit, just not too in depth. Now you are making me think, DAMN IT!

Okay, let us say at some point they could make an exact copy of me at some point in my life, like right now. This clone would have all of my life experiences and all of my attributes genetically down to the DNA level.

In what instance would I want this to happen. Let us say that I was dying, would I want a new ME created? To replace myself, almost like never ending life? I cannot think of what movie I saw go there, but I found it to be abhorrent.

If death does not exist, what is life than? We as sentient beings should do almost all in our power to extend life, but at what point do we say that playing God (even if you are atheist), could maybe cause the downfall of our species.

Just as you go into the aspect of Mengele, would not some megalomaniac want to make the world, in their image and their image alone?

One of my favorite stories was Eon by Greg Bear. In his book humans had the ability to download their conscientiousness into computers and also to create avatars for their conscientiousness to reside in. Sound Familiar? I found that movie to be such a plagiarized piece of %$*@^$. I wish the movie credited half of what they stole, to some of the authors they stole the script from. Okay, I have deviated from the discussion. Back on track.

Stagnation of the species. So many speak of evolution. I think more of the commingling of our genetic code furthers our advancement. Just as you need so many different people to continue the species due to the quantities required for the stability of the genetic code, so too do we need the very diverse natures of our existence to be stable.

Who in the future of cloning, would be getting cloned? Would the very people in our midst, that are the megalomaniacs attempt, at all costs, to further their lives? I think we can all agree on that answer.

For now, I would say until we have delved into the complete repercussions of such science, we need to have a moratorium on the research or at least the implementation of it. Components like cloning tissue or say organs is something right around the corner if it does not already exist.

Again SKL, another thought provoking thread. You as always, set the benchmark. S&F.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Wow, that in and of itself can mean many things. But one very important one comes to mind. Is it engrained in our genetic code to only live so long.

That of course than leads to the ability to manipulate that code to change the very nature of our genetic makeup. Of course which could lead to other repercussions.

I read somewhere that in our entire body every cell can be replaced, except for nerve tissues. They only live and then die. They are not replaced. What if we can find the way for these cells to replicate themselves when they die?

Personally, I have no issue with cloning. It could be a great help to society (Conservation of the species and cloning animals for food), but in some cases I suppose it could be quite dangerous (Like the movie The Island, harvesting organs and selling parts of the clones. And like star wars by creating a clone army and using them for wars). But then again we have to remember that everything has a risk and that not everything is 100% safe as some would like to believe. Is cloning playing God? Not at all, because as stated by Phlynx, it is in essence a type of "twin". And for the most part a cloned human will not look exactley like the host human, it would just have a major portion of personality. I am sure the clone would have a soul as well. I am not sure that a living human can function without one. It is like the invisible battery for all of us.

The Island:

Lincoln Six-Echo is a resident of a seemingly Utopian but contained facility in the year 2019. Like all of the inhabitants of this carefully controlled environment, Lincoln hopes to be chosen to go to the "The Island" - reportedly the last uncontaminated spot on the planet. But Lincoln soon discovers that everything about his existence is a lie. He and all of the other inhabitants of the facility are actually human clones. Lincoln makes a daring escape with a beautiful fellow resident named Jordan Two-Delta. Relentlessly pursued by the forces of the sinister institute that once housed them, Lincoln and Jordan engage in a race for their lives to literally meet their makers.

Originally posted by CSquared288
I was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago when I caught Stargate for the first time in a while. The 'asgard' are displayed as benevolent beings who move their consciousnesses from clone to clone. Throughout the series they are displayed as beings we should look up to or emulate. It saddens me a little. Great post, S&F

[edit on 3/7/10 by CSquared288]

I have seen that episode and while it's not exactly what the thread is about, it does touch on one of the many ideas about cloning, and it brings to mind a comic book story I remember reading, in regards to Star Wars.

I have those comic books but not handy to provide links for them.

It however brought into question about cloning and the soul transferring from one body, to the next, in saving the soul from dieing off, and living another lifespan.

Originally posted by Phlynx
Cloning isn't playing God. Cloning is perfectly natural. Cloning is nearly identical to what happens to twins. Fine by me if they want to clone humans. I wouldn't mind seeing some extinct animals cloned.

If it were natural, it would happen without scientists, without a petri dish, and manipulations of genes, to induce a recreation of a cellular organism.

Twins happen without a scientist, it is a biological recreation, chemical reaction alone.

Along with the physical organs and body tissues yet it is not identical completely.

As for animals who become extinct, I see your point, but to me, we as humans should be responsible, and those animals should be given due respect and not wiped out for the vain pleasure of hats, homes, and trespassing.

If cloning is a way to expand life, what about the responsibility of living the life that was snuffed out, and the responsibility of respecting life to begin with?

It is an escapism of limits and encroaching upon playing "God" by becoming "God".

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


While I agree that a cloned human body would not have the same personality and character traits as the original, I wonder if you're over-reacting to what your boss said. It sounds like she considers you a valuable employee, and wishes she had several more just as valuable as you, not that she literally wants to clone you.

reply to post by TheMythLives


I didn't know anything about the movie the Island when I took my then girlfriend to see it. I thought was going to be a boring romanticized chick flick.

I'm glad I was wrong.


On-topic

I think we as a race need to step back and really think about this for a while. To quote a line from Jurassic park.

[Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. ]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Same here, the Island.... I thought it was about Atlantis or something along those lines and it turns out to a kick-butt action drama, with real life possibilities. I loved it.

But yea, a lot of things we do as a society as a whole we tend to do because we can and if we can we shall! But in the end that can usually winds up with us screaming, "What have we DONE!" I think there really is no HUGE danger unless things are taken under black government projects or corporations or something, but if they are used for correct purposes and in the way they are meant to be, a human in society. Then we should all be good.

surely its understood by now that cloning yourself to cure disease only means correct genetic mistakes, by creating a corrected version of a cell then use that healthy cell to replicate the healthy version of the lung/heart/kidney cells inside your own body, replacing the diseased cells.

i know theres a lot of people who like to envoke the image of a kid on ice in a lab somewhere waiting for you to steal its organs but in reality its not that sci-fi.
in this day and age to say you dont agree with letting them use cloning to help people is like saying you dont like people using televisions because of all the little people that are enslaved inside; it shows you have no idea how the technology operates.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by james420]

Which actions are playing god and which aren't? How do you decide? Medical science has successfully prevented people from dying from things that they otherwise would have, many times. The life expectancy in the developed world has essentially doubled in the last thousand years, because of science. Is this playing God? How can any action that a human being can take be compared to any action that an all powerful being takes?

If humans have the capacity to do something, that action is a human action and not reserved for god.

We interfere with life and death constanty. Why should cloning be where we draw the line? And not in vetro fertilization, or even saving pregnancies that would otherwise terminate? We use vaccines and save millions of lives, and render microorganisms(presumably creatures of god) completely powerless when we vaccinate against them. We undermine their entire reason for being.

How much control should humans be allowed to exert on reality before we start saying they are playing god?

It seems to me that anywhere we draw the line arbitrary. We have free will, anything we do or can do is fair game. We don't have the ability to play god, any more than an ant has the ability to play president of the united states.

Once clones are born, they are not fundamentally different from the rest of us. Of course their origin is different, but no persistent properties of their bodies or minds is fundamentally different from other humans. Should we attach some profound significance to the biochemical origins of a fetus? If so, what exactly is the important part? We already allow artificial insemination. Even if we are able to describe some part of the chemical process which we believe is somehow spiritually and fundamentally significant, why that part? Why not the whole thing, which we already mess with? Why is the process any less legitmitate because it is facilitated by technology and science(both of which are natural products of the human mind)?

I don't see that there's anything deeply significant about cloning. You can easily place everything from having sex at certain times in a woman cycle to cloning all along the same spectrum. And along that spectrum, you cannot locate some point at which things become unnatural. At least you can't find a point that is non-arbitrary; that has some real profound spiritual or fundamental significance. That spectrum is the extent to which we act in order to produce a certain result. In other words, exert control over reality.

Everything that we as humans do is either natural or unatural. I don't mean specific acts are or are not, I mean the entire human endeavour is or is not. I think it is all natural. Science is a product of humans. Humans are creatures of the earth. Scientific things are no less natural than ant hills and bee hives. All are products of the creatures of the earth. Cloning is too.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I've never heard of that movie but I will check into it that's for sure.

And yes, I see your point about Dolly and her age being a disposition as to long life.

But that is just the dichotomy of the situation is it not that cloning was allegedly about extending life, or in knowing how to cheat death, is it not?

Believe me, I do not fear death, but I do not have a desire to die, but neither do I have a desire to live longer than my body will live, because I cannot see how it will add to the world, it will cheapen life to me, cheapening the meaning of our intrinsic value.

What then if cloning adds to the world hunger situation when someone does it and the original person is not yet dead, and they paid an exhorbitant fee, just for vanity?

reply to post by endisnighe


I am a big fan of science fiction as well, endisnighe, and I could quote many books too.

However, I am not going to quote one of those, but a book about fear.

It was an interesting read to say the least about why we fear and what we do about that.

The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fde2420c0914.jpg[/atsimg]

Publishers Weekly : Amazon Review :

Gardner, a columnist and senior writer for the Ottawa Citizen, is both matter-of-fact and entertaining in this look at fear and how it shapes our lives.

Although we are capable of reason, says Gardner, we often rely instead on intuitive snap judgments.

We also assume instinctively, but incorrectly, that if examples of something can be recalled easily, that thing must be common.

And what is more memorable than headlines and news programs blaring horrible crimes and diseases, plane crashes and terrorist attacks?

In fact, such events are rare, but their media omnipresence activates a gut-level fear response that is out of proportion to the likelihood of our going through such an event.

It doesn't help that scientific data and statistics are often misunderstood and misused and that our risk assessment is influenced less by the facts than by how others respond.

Gardner's vivid, direct style, backed up by clear examples and solid data from science and psychology, brings a breath of fresh air and common sense to an emotional topic.

(June)
Copyright

©

Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

All rights reserved.

Is it really a fear of death or is it a fear of facing God and ourselves?

I believe the movie you're referencing is Arnold Swarzenegger's The Sixth Day.

Another awesome movie about cloning and the ethics of committing to an action.

The 6th Day Trailer


[edit on 7-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I don't know SKL, I think 100,000 or so of me would be a great start.

Everyone could have their very own WUK! Wouldn't that be great?

Cloning is a topic I'm continuously struggling with figuring out where I stand. I do see it as scientific/medical advancement (not playing god, necessarily) with the potential for great good. Having the ability to clone failing organs or to work with stem cells in such a way to cure disease is something I would support. Beyond that, I'm uncertain....

___________________________
ETA:
That quote from Jurassic Park (that Slayer mentioned) has always stuck in my mind, as well.

The moral/ethical debates should continue....




[edit on 7-3-2010 by LadySkadi]

I'd just like to offer another perspective here. In business it's not usually the super fantastic idea that transforms into the immensely successful business. Rather, it's usually a fairly simple idea that's executed extraordinarily well. Ray Kroc took the McDonald's concept and grew it into the world's most successful fast food enterprise, and he did that by "cloning" a highly effective model comprised of a system of employees that execute their required functions. Walk into any McDonald's and what you're looking at is a bunch of "clones." Figuratively, of course.

reply to post by TheMythLives


I understand where you're coming from completely and as well the ramifications.

And this is exactly one of the many avenues of just how responsibility comes into play.

Do you honestly believe any Government, take your pick, would stop, just because it was illegal?

I do not believe that fallacy in the least, I believe Government is full of people, and people have ambitions, plans, and rhetoric, and they will do almost anything to recreate that and plot to undermine those who would stop them, even cloning.

How do we as a society as a whole decide where the ultimate line in the sand is drawn?

And how do we as well stop the ploy of rich verses poor because we all know that the rich will be the only ones who can and will be able to afford it, through the use of power, money, and ethics of ethnicity over choices of who will and will not be allowed to be cloned, and we both know an H.M.O. will never cover cloning.

So, only the rich should be allowed to be cloned, or reduce the cost with a coupon?

I say no, period, no matter the money, no matter the race, no matter the thoughts.

Playing "God" is a slippery slope and cheating death reverses a natural Yin and Yang.

Life needs a balance, an unhinging that balance, is tantamount to opening Pandora's Box.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Pandora's Box

In Greek mythology, Pandora's box is the large jar (πιθος pithos) carried by Pandora (Πανδώρα) that, when opened by her, unleashed many terrible things on mankind – ills, toils and sickness, – and hope.

Contrary to popular belief, in the original story, Pandora's "box" was not actually a box at all, but rather a jar.

Hence, the historically correct term would be "Pandora's jar".

[edit on 7-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Well 'God' created us in his image right.... must've cloned us from himself!

And if we're speaking biblical, then if God did create us in his image, also gave us the ability to be Gods and given us the ability to Clone.

Although I disagree with the OP, only because of his reasoning, I do agree that cloning should be given more thought.

As a previous posted said, it happens naturally when Identical Twins are born, but cloning as a whole I am not so sure, there would REALLY need to be a good reason for cloning, not a full duplicate of a human with mind, but perhaps cloning body parts for people who have lost limbs.

SKL, nicely put together.

Originally posted by AquaDuck
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

While I agree that a cloned human body would not have the same personality and character traits as the original, I wonder if you're over-reacting to what your boss said. It sounds like she considers you a valuable employee, and wishes she had several more just as valuable as you, not that she literally wants to clone you.

I can appreciate what you're saying but I think you may have mistaken my intent.

The intent was to spark off an intelligent conversation and my over-reaction was my use of intelligence, to sidestep a compliment I did not necessarily want to accept.

Yes, she was being complimentary, not literal, but I took her metaphorical and went literal.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Agreed.

Just because you can, does not mean you should, the ethics of doing something questionable.

And that was a favorite quote of mine from Jurassic Park.

Originally posted by james420
surely its understood by now that cloning yourself to cure disease only means correct genetic mistakes, by creating a corrected version of a cell then use that healthy cell to replicate the healthy version of the lung/heart/kidney cells inside your own body, replacing the diseased cells.

i know theres a lot of people who like to envoke the image of a kid on ice in a lab somewhere waiting for you to steal its organs but in reality its not that sci-fi.
in this day and age to say you dont agree with letting them use cloning to help people is like saying you dont like people using televisions because of all the little people that are enslaved inside; it shows you have no idea how the technology operates.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by james420]

I think you mistake that I do not know how cloning is done and or the science behind the scenes, but I can see how you might think that, based on how l have spoken.

I do understand how cloning is done, the usage of selected sperm, eggs, and selecting which cells are or are not replicated, there are many avenues about cloning.

I do understand correcting "mistakes" as you put it but this is as well people smoking during pregnancy, when they know better which creates a deformity, people drinking during sex, and or genetic dispositions because of our genes.