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

reply to post by whatukno

NOOOO!

Not a wuk army, my God, I can hardly take one of you!

See, if you created an army of WUK's, you would no longer be unique. Would you REALLY want a bunch of WUK's running around.

I am not say you are insecure or a jealous type person, but could you take someone else saying what you were JUST about to bring to the table.

I am what I am and you are what you are. There just cannot be another WUK.

Peace whatukno.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
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?

My point exactly is and was how do we decide and who exactly decides which acts are our choices, and which ones are "God's", and is it us deciding or God?

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

A human action, yes, but is it moral, immoral, or amoral?

Originally posted by OnceReturned
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.

I could not agree with you more about that in that we interfere with life and death.

I was having this very discussion with my friend locally as I posted this thread.

There is a cycle of life and we interfere with it by cheating death, unbalancing balance.

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

But is this not exactly what politician's do every single day, play "God"?

They shift reality by propaganda about a set of circumstances and or events.

And who picks who does and does not receive the right to be cloned?

We know that the rich will pick and the poor will lose out, period.

A bank account should not equal life where living on the poverty line equals death.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
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.

But where is the line drawn where we will not cross?

Or more so which line is it we will demand that it lays concreted permanently?

A simple shuffle of a foot erases that line with monetary promises of funding.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
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 can see you think about different aspects of life like I do and all are common thoughts about the different aspects of life, from artificial insemination, to abortion, to the science of gene manipulation.

I understand a clone would have a soul, like TheMythLives pointed out, it is the battery, an energy source, that powers our physical body, but how is it that this soul was brought into reality through the creation of a physical being which did not have that right to exist to begin with, and when will procreation be outlawed unless you have a permit to copulate for breeding purposes only?

These are all the things that will be affected by the shifting and changing laws with cloning.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
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.

Yes, and this reminds me of the old wivetales about how to get a certain gender.

They are about as silly and arbitrary as selecting with a petri dish and splicing genes.

And yes, optimum sperm placement within the female cycle is just as much the same.

The difference lies not in the funding but the delivery of the method.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
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.

Well, this is where I disagree, it is not "natural" if it did not happen via happenstance.

If we go out of our way to have a selected clone be produced upon a manufacturer's assembly line, and select eye color, based upon vanity and genetic desires, this is an artificial enabling of picking selectively, selective breeding.

And the system is what is at fault, not us humans, because humans have a desire to live, and corporations choose to profit of our own desires, and force laws to change.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by whatukno


My God, Wukky, the world is almost bad off enough with just you, let alone 100,000 copies.

There is something to be said for having something unique and one of a kind.

As always, I expected your humor to lighten the mood, thanks for posting.

I was laughing pretty hard at Weird Al Yankovic's song "I Think I'm A Clone Now.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
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'm glad you posted your thoughts whether you know your stance or not.

I can see the benefits but as well the negative sides as well.

There are those within Government who will abuse this process to maintain power too.

Originally posted by walking_virus
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.

I love your answer, and I see your point, cloning a business to maximize profit.

And this is the simplistic example of just how it works and the demands are similar.

When McDonalds picks it's menu it picks it based on maximizing profits.

And then it changes that menu to guarantee that profit and rise of consumerism.

This is something we have to look at for the physical recreation of the human too.

Originally posted by Im a Marty
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.

Yes, Im a Marty, that is of course, if someone believe in God.

I see the humor about "cloning" and "God" and the rib of Adam making Eve.

While we may disagree we agree to disagree with a civility through discourse.

And twins, happens naturally, through chemical reactions of our physical entity.

And gene splicing and or cloning is a manipulation of this through artificial means.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whatukno

 

NOOOO!

Not a wuk army, my God, I can hardly take one of you!

See, if you created an army of WUK's, you would no longer be unique. Would you REALLY want a bunch of WUK's running around.

I am not say you are insecure or a jealous type person, but could you take someone else saying what you were JUST about to bring to the table.

I am what I am and you are what you are. There just cannot be another WUK.

Peace whatukno.

I could not agree with you more about that statement, endisnighe.

And for the same reasoning too, because we are unique human beings, individuals.

While Wuk was using humor to make a statement, I loved his candor.

In my opinion it cheapens life's meaning while costing us so very much, literally and metaphorically.

I can visualize myself on my death bed. Thoughts of fond memories swirling in my mind. I know it's the end and I'm ok with it. Thoughts of not having to worry about bills anymore and the heartaches that accompany our human existence. I am free from all of that and I let myself drift into the ethereal world of nothingness...

I awake in a strange hospital. A doctor looking over a clip board says, "Hey, jackflap, I bet your surprised aren't you?" He places the clip board down on the end table and uses his stethoscope to listen to my heart as he talks absentmindedly about what has gone on. It actually seems like something he's memorized and done before.

"Your government felt that you still had a few loose ends to tie up so we couldn't let you go just yet. In two days you will return to your family and let them know that you made a full recovery. Before you are allowed to go you will have to finish paying that mortgage and make sure that you don't fall behind on those car payments again." He hangs his stethoscope over his neck and strolls out the door.

This is where it will lead my friend!

reply to post by jackflap




Damn it, I cannot take it with me, and I'm not going to stay for a damn mortgage!

That was funny as Hell, jackflap, really funny.

I'm going to make sure you're not on the decision board for allowing cloning.

There was scene in B5 that describe it best. It was dealing with immortality and an alien doctor.

If I remember correctly the vorlons took her out

"Your not ready yet."

The food supply????

questionable, depends on the cost

organ harvesting potential-
great it might kill a black market if done right

Read time enough for love by robert a heinlein

Same for practical immotality

Then you must consider Star wars, fiction or not

Could you imagine an army grown from cortical cells of say Richard Marcinko...

Yes the age issue of the cells means they copied the age marker at its time set.

I ve wondered what would happen if you cloned an embryo from adult cells. I.E. used the donors DNA to overwrite a fertilized cells DNA

Its like the use of atomic technologies, its initial use will cause it to be judge by those standards.

I wish to now make a statement not connect completely to this thread but I hope in the spirit of it.

When I first started my studies I got hit for some reason with a nasty thought.

What if you used the bodies of recently deceased women of child bearing age and kept them alive. Then you took their eggs and did as I suggested earlier. These children would not be on the radar anywhere. You could build and train an army from birth.

Either good thread

As the science of cloning and genetic manipulation improves, this may be one of the most controversial ethical paradoxes for humanity? I have thought long and hard about cloning and manipulation of genetic signatures. Is it right or is it wrong? Until we successfully clone a human being and study it, we are only left with Dolly the sheep and her life. As one pointed out, she lived only 6 years and less the original copy. Then we learned of the clone's medical prowess compared to the original, and the copy was far less healthy. That is what we have to contend with scientifically at this point.

When is the next jump going to take place? Will science clone humans, or species of the past like neanderthals or even the dinosaurs? How will these aberrations affect the delicate balance of life on this planet? I believe there is a thing called the law of nature, and man has no business tampering with that. At least at our present stage of development. We kill each other, waste everything in sight, destroy weaker species and civilizations, and many other unsavory characteristics to contend with. Having the ability to do what is brought up in this thread is an awesome power, and not something to trivialize about.

At this time in human history, I believe mankind is not in any shape to have that power. Moreover, I think this will be used for all the wrong reasons. It will be used for control, power, and avarice. Can you imagine "shake and bake," people? That is kind of on the scale of the movie "Gattacca," as is referenced in the thread. I find that movie quite disturbing. Babies born with a perfect set of genes as result of parents economic standing have an advantage over a child born through natural means. I can see it going that way as shown in the movie if it comes into the mainstream. Call it discrimination of another kind. As fickle as humanity is, it is very possible.

I am kind of on the fence about this topic. I am not saying it is right or wrong? All I expect is for members of the scientific community to weigh the pros and cons before changing very concept of humanity as we know it. For example, we had the Manhattan Project and the birth of the atomic weapons age. Did scientists and the government weigh the pros and cons of such advancements and how it would affect generations to come? No they did not, and all they were concerned about was ending the war. Once the genie was let out of the bottle it is nearly impossible to put it back in. People and governments having been advocating non-proliferation since the first bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and still they are here. That example could very well be applied to this emerging science if it falls into the wrong hands. To cut a longer story short, is it really worth it?

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Jakes51]

Forgive me, I haven't read the rest of the thread. I want to get my thoughts down first.

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

I haven't read where the death of Dolly was attributed to the fact of cloning. In fact:

Roslin scientists stated that they did not think there was a connection with Dolly's being a clone, and that other sheep in the same flock had died of the same disease.

Source

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

As far as I know, that's an assumption that I haven't seen supported.

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

I'm not for or against cloning. I don't believe in "long life" because of it. The clone would be a different person, as you have said. Just as identical twins are two separate personalities, each with their own awareness and consciousness, desires and drive. It is NOT a continuation of one's life any more than a brother or sister is a continuation of one's life. It's a totally separate being.

(I think your boss is giving you a huge compliment and that you should take it as such. JMO)

To me, cloning is not that much different than reproducing the natural way, really. It's no more scary (or playing God) than test tube babies, for example. In fact, it's no more "playing God" than using science to prolong life FAR beyond a natural death. Heart surgery is "playing God". Any use of science to prevent someone's death is "playing God".

Of course, I've never seen any scary movies about cloning. And they ARE movies. They are sensational and scary for a reason. And that reason is the box office, not anything based on fact.

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

They are people (if we should ever successfully clone people) and so if people have souls, then clones have souls.

I don't have a problem with it. There would have to be tests on animals, etc., just as we sent a dog and a chimp to the moon. It's medical science and could save lives and make advances that we haven't even dreamed about. I'm not going to cry if cloning never happens, but I really can't find myself resisting the idea.

Just wanted to add a for the Jurassic Park quote. That also occurred to me. It's true that just because you can doesn't mean that you should. But it doesn't mean that you shouldn't, either. ALL of our scientific advancements came because we could.... and we did.


[edit on 3/8/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

My name?

I have no real name.
I have a number.

Whats your number?

I'm 1

1? Why 1?

That's becuase I was the first one created to supply spare parts for 0.

Oh I see, How are they treating you 1?

Fine so far, they just come in every so often and check my vital signs and occasionally take what body part they need.

reply to post by ripcontrol


Well, television shows or not, the probability of cloning food, disturbs me.

On very many levels because we already have a Throw Away Society.

Where cake batters, recipes, and food is so easily recreated, because of time.

Not because we need it, but because we want to save time, which is improper time management, and because of the ever increasing demands for more work, for less pay, work hard, charge credit cards, and pay continually.

So, to me, cloning is similar, because time demands from work and bills, the family unit is being systematically destroyed, and cloning is just one more part of that in the ready-made family mentality that robs us of our family structuring through society, and the soon to be bred Loyal Citizen who thinks not for themselves, but for the machine.

No, this is not something I choose to support, ever, family destruction.

And as far as breeding clones for war, Richard Marcinko is one of my favorite people, but he's butt ugly, and I know he would laugh at someone stating that, I am in no way supporting a cloned army, it cheapens life even further, and only leads to idiots and bastards like Hitler.

Sorry, no dice, ripcontrol, no matter if it saves lives of people who would not need to go to war, it still costs money, time, and ultimately society.

Those clones, still die, and war becomes even more so a commodity, for the rich.

I do not want to propagate even more insanity through selective breeding.

Sorry, my ethics, morals, and beliefs are stronger than that, no dice.

War is already meaningless as it is, because it is about nothing more than money.

Pentagon funding, machinery being built, weapons produced, ammunition manufactured, the Military Industrial Complex would drool over mindless zombies, clones who obey and do not think, and I think those people willing to breed that, fund that, and produce that are monsters.

Monsters breeding monsters, how apropos.

Corruption is not just born that way, it is created, and the artificial environment of clones, creates and propagates only more corruption, there is no benevolence to a creation of a monstrosity such as this, only more death.

The ultimate in corruption is creating the monster to fight too.

Because once armies are cloned to fight, then an army will be cloned to defeat that army, and men will be sought to control these armies, such as puppet dictator's like Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Hugo Chavez.

Then it will be monster's leading monsters, funded by monster's.

False Flag Operator, Become Sheep-Dipped Or Wolf-Dipped, and Become A Puppet Dictator?

Originally posted by Jakes51
As the science of cloning and genetic manipulation improves, this may be one of the most controversial ethical paradoxes for humanity? I have thought long and hard about cloning and manipulation of genetic signatures. Is it right or is it wrong? Until we successfully clone a human being and study it, we are only left with Dolly the sheep and her life. As one pointed out, she lived only 6 years and less the original copy. Then we learned of the clone's medical prowess compared to the original, and the copy was far less healthy. That is what we have to contend with scientifically at this point.

Yes, and it is a slippery slope indeed, Jakes51, creating humans, only creates monsters.

Originally posted by Jakes51
When is the next jump going to take place? Will science clone humans, or species of the past like neanderthals or even the dinosaurs? How will these aberrations affect the delicate balance of life on this planet? I believe there is a thing called the law of nature, and man has no business tampering with that. At least at our present stage of development. We kill each other, waste everything in sight, destroy weaker species and civilizations, and many other unsavory characteristics to contend with. Having the ability to do what is brought up in this thread is an awesome power, and not something to trivialize about.

Nature has an equal balance, and the answer to extinction, is not creating that which is extinct, but lessening the events, changing those events, altering our mentality which lead to that extinction.

Not creating more of an extinct animal, human, or food.

It is the complete irresponsibility of our species to take the easy way out.

The easy choice is cloning, the difficult and moral choice, responsibility.

When you can just clone up a replacement for something that was wasted, then it really does become a Throw Away Society, and we are lost.

Originally posted by Jakes51
At this time in human history, I believe mankind is not in any shape to have that power. Moreover, I think this will be used for all the wrong reasons. It will be used for control, power, and avarice. Can you imagine "shake and bake," people? That is kind of on the scale of the movie "Gattacca," as is referenced in the thread. I find that movie quite disturbing. Babies born with a perfect set of genes as result of parents economic standing have an advantage over a child born through natural means. I can see it going that way as shown in the movie if it comes into the mainstream. Call it discrimination of another kind. As fickle as humanity is, it is very possible.

And what cost humanity, Jakes51?

I do not mean financial, although that is one avenue, but the cost of losing humanity.

People seem to forget, that assembly lines, make production costs lower, while losing jobs for those people who would be assemlbing products via hand, and the same goes for cloning, because once humans can be reproduced via assembly line technology, then you can be easily replaced.

Your intrinsic human value lowers, and your wages lower, because a clone will not refuse to do certain labors, or will not demand a pay raise, nor will they be hesitant of doing your job with less breaks and more hours, for less pay or even no pay whatsoever.

If we are already easily replaced via robots at factories, how easily will we be replaced by clones willing to take our paychecks, or if they even receive them to begin with, due to being a clone, will they have less legal recourse?

Slaves did not have rights at one time and clones may become the new slave.

Even the lessening of Civl Rights is at stake when people are seen as lesser beings.

If they are a piece of property, a clone, purchased, then they have no value other than as a piece of property, meaning no rights but by the will of the owners.

People, quite simply, do not think of the ramifications of the laws changing in favor or against, they see one perspective, and not both so often.

Originally posted by Jakes51
I am kind of on the fence about this topic. I am not saying it is right or wrong? All I expect is for members of the scientific community to weigh the pros and cons before changing very concept of humanity as we know it. For example, we had the Manhattan Project and the birth of the atomic weapons age. Did scientists and the government weigh the pros and cons of such advancements and how it would affect generations to come? No they did not, and all they were concerned about was ending the war. Once the genie was let out of the bottle it is nearly impossible to put it back in. People and governments having been advocating non-proliferation since the first bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and still they are here. That example could very well be applied to this emerging science if it falls into the wrong hands. To cut a longer story short, is it really worth it?

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Jakes51]

That is just the exact point I have been making, Jakes51, this concept will be done in favor of cheap labor, ease of manufacture, selling of body parts, which lessens humanity itself over all, because as we demand fair pay, the clones will be mute on the topic, as we believe in getting harvested organs because of a car accident, we take less responsibility for our actions as human beings because we know that organs can be grown quickly through cloning, replaced at whim, like a sprocket.

And our society will begin to become unraveled just like a stran of D.N.A.

What of those people who cannot afford those fancy and expensive clones?

Will their H.M.O. or the new Healthcare system pay for that or is like like a pre-exsting condition, your services will not be rendered, or cost more?

'Repo Men' Trailer HD


Will it come down to a legal market for organs, whole bodies, and re-creations?

[edit on 8-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


As always, wonderful to see you chime right in, Benevolent Heretic.

While, yes, I have not cited specific data and or information to back up my comments surrounding Dolly the Doppleganger Sheep, you do realize almost anything coming out of the scientific community in regards to why she did not live long, would be covered via scientific propaganda, correct?

The funding alone that provides the means to do this research would cover that eventuality, because anything that threatens that funding is their dirty little secret, something that would be swept under the proverbial rug.

I am not saying you are incorrect and I am right, you're probably very correct, but the information coming from these people is suspect, because of the funding sources, the means to do so, and the reasoning.

And yes, I do realize those are movies, but Hollywood was in bed with the U.S. Government during WWII, fighting the Nazi's, what makes you believe they ever got out of the bed with the Drama-Queen harlot ever?

And I do realize it was a compliment from my boss, she's like a second mother.

Personally, I see the box-office numbers as a means to weigh information.

It is similar to a think-tank, the more people who attend, the more definable data.

Information is power, after all, and what better way to get information easily?

Make movies, based on events of history, fiction, science fiction, and weigh the outcome.

You seem in the middle somewhat, which is fine by me, it means you at least weigh both sides of the argument, which is one of the reasons I always love hearing for you, you think and provide valuable insight into thought-provoking topics.

And I do realize it was a compliment from my boss, she's like a second mother.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
My name?

I have no real name.
I have a number.

Whats your number?

I'm 1

1? Why 1?

That's becuase I was the first one created to supply spare parts for 0.

Oh I see, How are they treating you 1?

Fine so far, they just come in every so often and check my vital signs and occasionally take what body part they need.

Sure sounds like something to consider, harvesting organs, at will.

The cheap replacement for what takes forever to grow, life itself.

If cloning goes the direction that I have outlined then instead of harvesting trees for paper products, leveling mountains for strip-mining, and depleting the oceans of fish, it will be humans who will be next.

Would it not become ironic when the last bred human resides in a zoo, like those animals we push into extinction, because the breeding process is controlled?

Future Scene : 2025 : Brooklyn Zoo :

Mother Unit : "Oh look, Number 3, a family of "breeder's"."

Number 3 : "Mother Unit, what's a "breeder family"?

Mother Unit : "Number 3, that was from back in 2013, Mother Unit's and Father Unit's would copulate for offspring."

Number 3 : "Mother Unit, what does copulate mean?"

Mother Unit : "It is sort of like inserting your penis into the Robot-Stimulator, to produce babies."

Number 3 : "EEEwww, how gross, Robot-Stimulator's are just for pleasure."

Father Unit : "We know Number 3, but humans were at one time barbaric. They copulated for pleasure, not for creating life, something that is now against the law. Unless you purchase a license to have face to face copulation, instead of providing sperm and ovum, like your Mother Unit and I did to get Number 4, 5, and you. We're Christian's after all"

Number 3 : "Parental Unit's, what is that "breeder" doing to the other "breeder"?

Father Unit : "That's face to face copulation, just like the animals, Number 3!"

Mother Unit : "Number 1, I do not want Number 3 exposed to that sick act."

Father Unit : "Oh, Number 2, if he does not watch, how will he learn history?"

Mother Unit : "Number 1, it is still a degrading act, let's go home so we can watch the Execution Games on Subliminal Neuro-Television, please."

Father Unit : "Come along now, Number 3, it is 6pm after all, curfew is at 7pm and the Execution Games comes on at 7:30pm, we do not want the Enforcers to stop us for questioning and make us miss the X-Games."

Number 3 : "Okay Father Unit, I support Unity through Government. Let's go watch those vile Thought Criminals get eaten by the lions. How dare them think for themselves, don't they realize the Supreme Chancellor knows best for us?"

Mother Unit and Father Unit (simultaneously) : "Oh no, Number 3, only criminal's and animal's think for themselves. And here the United World provides everything we ever want. Come along Number 3, before our Saturday Excursion Permit's are rescinded because we kept you out late."

[edit on 8-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Thanks for the quick reply SKL! You have hit the nail on the head with regards to this controversial topic. I am all for cloning, if we can maintain our humanity. What I mean by that statement, is to not take a living human being for granted. For instance, you bring up organ harvesting and the use of internal organs and limbs to address car accidents, cancers, and other medical ailments. Will the cloned humans be frozen in cryogenic stasis to such an extent that there will be storage sites and distribution centers were they can be used for raw materials for the matter mentioned above? In other words, warehouses full of living breathing human beings with the only purpose as being pieces of meat to be used to sustain lives of other more important people.

That is the problem I see, and how it can be used for more harm than good. As was said previously in another reply, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Now, I know some would say that my concern is like chicken little screaming the sky is falling about this issue? However, look at the carnage humanity is already capable of and how we manipulate and corrupt decent things right now, and if we are given this power will we corrupt it as we have done with other things? I hope for the best in any scientific advancement and human progress, however, everything comes with a cost and are we willing to foot that bill. To cut a long story short, hopefully human life remains something of value by this scientific research. In others words, will human life after cloning is mastered become nothing than a material object like a car, pair of shoes, or a flat-screen TV? Thanks for the reply and another interesting topic!

Originally posted by Phlynx
Cloning isn't playing God.

Yes, yes it is my friend (playing god, that is) because from the Religious standpoint - this was NOT the way God had intended for the human race to sustain and procreate (if it is, that you believe in God or the ways of religon).

If you DON'T believe in religion or God, then it still goes against the grain of Nature, in a natural setting, uninfluenced by men in lab coats, women with test tubes, and machines that cost more than all of the houses on your entire block are worth. That my friend, is not "natural".

And if you believe in Science, then you are on the fence just like the rest of us and ask questions because that is what scientists do: Question. Question everything from all possible angles, take nothing at face value, research, and conjure up all possible scenarios so that when you are questioned about a decision you made, you can say that you made a sound decision, based on facts. Cloning isn’t natural, and THAT is a fact. Not in the definition of which we are discussing.

Originally posted by Phlynx
Cloning is perfectly natural.

Ah, but it isn't.

For example:
In a natural setting, how does a pine tree ensure the existence of MORE pine trees? A biologist does not go around taking clippings or clones of pine trees and planning them all around to sustain the development of future pine trees. Pine trees; handle their own reproduction via seeds. That is not cloning.

A plant, in a natural setting does not have a biologist coming around and taking cuttings, nursing the cuttings until they are strong enough to root, and then plants them. Nope. Plants handle their own procreation.

Humans... In a natural setting, in the old-fashioned way: I know I don’t have to explain this one – but in nature – human’s are not cloned. We’re born from one sperm, fertilizing one egg and implantation on the uterine wall. Thus begins meiosis (division of cells) etc... etc...

Cloning is nearly identical to what happens to twins.

I’m sorry, I have to disagree.

*Identical Twins: when a single egg is fertilized to form one zygote, which then divides into two separate embryos.

Fraternal Twins: when two fertilized eggs are implanted in the uterine wall at the same time. When two eggs are independently fertilized by two different sperm cells. The two eggs, or ova, form two zygotes.*

** Paraphrased, Source, Wiki

Twins are natural, clones are not. And although both might share the same genetic make-up (identical twins, and a clone of a clone) A clone is a result of interference with nature.

Fine by me if they want to clone humans. I wouldn't mind seeing some extinct animals cloned.

It's a touchy subject, and a thin line when it comes to cloning. Is it okay to clone plants? Well maybe, because they don’t think, have personalities, or emotions.

Animals that are going extinct? Oh perhaps, but I’m sure PETA could twist this into some animal rights endeavour, for which they’ll again try to capitalize on because, well we all know they’re really in it for the animals. Right.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
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....

This was the way it was explained to me, in my days of Science Classes. That the clone is a direct replica of the original from which it came. So in Dolly’s case, the sheep she was cloned from was 6 years old – thus, Dolly might only have been 2 days old (2 days since she’d been cloned) but she had all the attributes and qualities of a 6 year old sheep. She might have only lived 6 years – but her cells were 12 years old. (That’s the way I understood it at least).

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

That if they were to make clones, they should do them from a younger age...

But a few of my questions, based on endisnigh’s post:

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.

1. Would they really have the same memories/instincts duplicated from the original from which they were cloned? Would they have the same taste in foods? In men/women?

I tend to agree with the style of which Beneveolent Heretic presented her case... that as twins are identical looking yet have different desires, a clone would be the same - looking identical to the original, but having a different drive, a different sense of self.. etc.

2. And then that bears another question which I’m not sure I want to think about: How does the brain of a clone work? Does the clone think the same way Although at the time of the copy, neurons and brain function are identical – does the clone have a personality? Does it have allergies? Does it get sick at the same times as the original?

These are living, breathing thinking creatures... I can’t quite wrap my head around the way a clone of me would think...I can't quite get it lol.

Originally posted by endisnigh
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.

Exactly, and although I can see the benefits of say, stem-cells, and cloning tissue and/or organs for health benefits – where does it stop? ....Just where do we draw the line? Do we decide on a case-by-case basis? Do we have every scientist on the planet agree to, swear an oath, to sign a sheet of paper, to swear on a stack of bibles: that this technology will not be used for anything unethical? I can see the benefits for medical advancement, but the risks.... I can see the risks too, and this leaves me unable to choose.

It’s the same reason and logical style of thinking as to why half of us terrified of Nuclear warfare technology. Not because there aren’t benefits, but because the risks associated with this information falling into the wrong hands, is too great. The risk of another Josef Mengele (as pointed out by endisnigh) is an entirely possible scenario that leaves too much risk.

There is nothing to promise, that cloning wouldn’t be used for the purpose of a massed army...for the purpose of creating the perfect soldiers...for war.

These aren’t plant leaves, aren’t flower petals, or tree stems, these are LIVING creatures who eat, drink, sleep, think) – how can we trust the technology to be used for positive purposes??

How do we know? ...we don’t. More specifically, I don’t.

Just my thoughts...


- Carrot

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I so want to clone myself.

I plan on filling the world with my malevolent replicas...it'll be great...I expect we will be quite sympatico...

I remember explaining these plans to a customer at my (then) work...He became quite shaken, and ran out the door, yelling "A pox on you, and your replicas !!!"

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree to some extant.

I see several areas where the quiet application of cloning technology should be done immediately.

Its sounds like we agree that it will come down to where we morally draw the line.

For the creation of soldiers-

Am I a member of the deciding powers or a citizen?

I have learned it affects my answer...

As a citizen no, as say president of law maker it depends on the circumstances. I take the jobs I accept with a high level of responsibility, and my duty is to PRESERVE and PROTECT. Its a dance to insure neither is violated and both maintained

For law enforcement...Absolutely not in any way... no clones on american soil for police duties

For organ for transplants-
Yes but with a clause- the rules designed to make it cheap and to prevent/destroy organ theft market

Replace extinct species-
I am against, but this has the exception of what the situation is- necessary for survival of human race yes- maybe a few others

Dying species-
same question but different answer- will not prevent natural mechanisms from occurring, will agree to preserves of them

Fully cloned human-
On american soil- if conscious - full citizenship automatically- otherwise violation of

en.wikipedia.org...

Now if this clone is say a child....

They will try to go around this,

Our obvious areas of disagreement...

Food supply-
for cattle and other food sources I would do it in a heartbeat....

For hey and grass same thing---

Its not a bad idea and I think can be done cheaply on a mass scale- not a bad idea if done quietly..hehehehehehehe

Saving forest-
Interesting but I do not think it would be cost positive for a few cycles, now if it produces say the mulch for paper- but that becomes genetic engineering and this is over cloning

This is the one I am iffy on-
Your genes belong to the human race as a whole but you are the individual caretaker....

Say bright genius dies- or say even a dead one-- what would a clone of Tesla do if he was raised by a middle class american family-- and say given encouragement to persue his interest (not specific)

Now to the part I can want to go through for the crimes I consider

Replacement of world leaders-

Sex slaves-

Labor real cheap only cost is growth and maintenance

Clones of elvis, jimmi, mamma cas, ect in a single band.... copyright violations

Assassins- programmed from creation and or enhanced...

Super soldiers-
no free will grunts

Police-
cheap easy to replace and can be blamed for any mistakes--- then destroyed

A lot of potential to be abused

i say clone away, to be honest. it will be perfected whether anyone likes it or not.

morality changes from viewpoint to viewpoint.in other words, evil is only evil from a certain point of view. the reason most of us share a common morality is because those with that morality dominated those without it. and isn't domination, forcing another to your will, really evil in itself?

Originally posted by Jakes51
Thanks for the quick reply SKL! You have hit the nail on the head with regards to this controversial topic. I am all for cloning, if we can maintain our humanity. What I mean by that statement, is to not take a living human being for granted. For instance, you bring up organ harvesting and the use of internal organs and limbs to address car accidents, cancers, and other medical ailments. Will the cloned humans be frozen in cryogenic stasis to such an extent that there will be storage sites and distribution centers were they can be used for raw materials for the matter mentioned above? In other words, warehouses full of living breathing human beings with the only purpose as being pieces of meat to be used to sustain lives of other more important people.

That is just it, Jakes51, we cannot retain our humanity, because cloning undermines it.

It is a quick solution to a complex problem, like sticking our finger in the Hoover Dam, knowing the overflow systems are out of control, it does nothing but put a Band-Aid on the would needing a tourniquet.

The false promise is a solution to end misery, end death, and quick turnaround.

The quick turnaround is profits for those vile people using society, nothing more.

Originally posted by Jakes51
That is the problem I see, and how it can be used for more harm than good. As was said previously in another reply, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Now, I know some would say that my concern is like chicken little screaming the sky is falling about this issue? However, look at the carnage humanity is already capable of and how we manipulate and corrupt decent things right now, and if we are given this power will we corrupt it as we have done with other things? I hope for the best in any scientific advancement and human progress, however, everything comes with a cost and are we willing to foot that bill. To cut a long story short, hopefully human life remains something of value by this scientific research. In others words, will human life after cloning is mastered become nothing than a material object like a car, pair of shoes, or a flat-screen TV? Thanks for the reply and another interesting topic!

Hoping for the best, and knowing what those who rely on that hope will do, are two different things completely, they rely on selling based on hope and change.

Meanwhile, only those who can afford this process will be allowed to participate, the investors, shareholders, billionaires, and Government and none who actually value life that will see it as a means of dissecting the status level even more so.

Remember, anyone making anything below what a major corporation makes will not be able to afford it, nor will they be given an opportunity, selective breeding.

Selective elitism is more like it, culling the people that Government deems as "useless feeders".

reply to post by CA_Orot


And I agree with you 100% that it is playing "God" because without manipulation via this process, it would not happen in nature, except as a happenstance event.

It is not hard to see where science and funding come into play it buys the perspectives of those people they target to sell the promises of long life, meanwhile foregoing many practices that are what makes life about responsibility, bypassing that responsibility, and making amends through promises of longevity.

If life is promised to lengthened then it ultimately undermines just how valuable we as humans are through the same principles of printing more money when we run out.

Oh, we're out of money, so we will print more, and therefore we create more but lessen all of it's value, the same as cloning is to humanity, it cheapens the family unit.

Undermining in one fell swoop the entire process of familial ties and the process of life itself.

Sorry, I just happen to actually appreciate sexual reproduction, it is not just about pleasure, but about bringing more humans into this world, as a means to keep the species alive, something we need to do because of understanding nature and the laws of survival, not because of a test tube and petri dish.

I can fully understand and appreciate shortcuts, but some shortcuts actually wreck humanity.

Cloning is one of them in my opinion.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

I so want to clone myself.

I plan on filling the world with my malevolent replicas...it'll be great...I expect we will be quite sympatico...

I remember explaining these plans to a customer at my (then) work...He became quite shaken, and ran out the door, yelling "A pox on you, and your replicas !!!"

Well, knowing how you post, I take this as you being serious, not jesting.

I do not support this type of thinking because I see each human as unique.

If cloning were to happen then someone like Tom Cruise were to be cloned, because he could afford it, then what would be stopping people from wanting to purchase a replica of him, cheapening the value of him, and making more trouble?

I picked Tim Cruise on purpose because of his Scientology position as well as him being an actor, an industry and job which relies on his unique talents to survive.

Whether I agree with Hollywood or not, with all of the ego-driven people there who already get Botox injections, facelifts, and plastic surgery because of vanity, just imagine all of these people wanting to purchase clones.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I think you are missing out on the start of a great business venture there SKL.

A wuk in every home!

And, instead of sending our kids to die in some god forsaken battlefield, you send the wuk clone army to tackle any baddies.

We will do a first production run of say 100,000 just to start, if the idea takes off, then we can ramp up production for the military.

Sure, they might turn on everyone at a pre determined date and take over the planet, but we will put an asterisk on the shipping box!

*[size=-3]Warning, clone is pre programmed to take over population on December 21 2012.

I mean if you are worried about lawsuits.

reply to post by ripcontrol


Agree or disagree, that's your perspective and I am fine with other people not seeing nor agreeing with my perspective, it suits me just fine to be one of kind, in all ways.

See, to me, it does not matter whether I am a peon, or in control I would not support cloning.

While I see your point and can concur on some levels, over all it is a disagreeing position where we will not share our ideals, because our position should be the same if a peon citizen or one who is in power to choose those decisions.

There is literally only one area I would ever support cloning, and it's a fine niche.

If nuclear winter, a Nuclear Strike were to happen, on American soil.

In other words, our entire nation were on the fringes of being wiped out, I might support it.

And that's a contingency plan I would have to have been on the inside of the choice making, writing the policy to keep that in check, so as to not allow a False-Flag Operation to undo those checks under Continuity of Government.

Because this is exactly how and why these events unfold, to unlock and undo those systems of control, keeping deep and dark secrets locked away, like Titans of old.

Even then I am still leery of it because there are those in Government who would take advantage of the knowledge of those systems kept in secret, their intentions being what they feel is best for our nation, but they ultimately are traitors.

Traitors to humanity itself, selling out humanity, for their egos, nothing more.

Originally posted by optimus primal
i say clone away, to be honest. it will be perfected whether anyone likes it or not.

morality changes from viewpoint to viewpoint.in other words, evil is only evil from a certain point of view. the reason most of us share a common morality is because those with that morality dominated those without it. and isn't domination, forcing another to your will, really evil in itself?

Yes, you are correct, it will be done, whether we support it, or not.

That is of course just one of the many reasons I do not support it.

Because they will do it because they can, not because they should, which is reckless disregard for humanity, and selling out humanity as a whole, cheapening the meaning of life.

I still see it as a means of reducing societies control of itself and giving into Government.

Imagine if you will, if Government chose to make cloning happen, and outlawed reproduction.

Controlled humanity, which never questions authority, sure sounds like slavery.

Sorry, I enjoy thinking, learning, reading, agreeing and disagreeing, it makes me human.