Jump to content

Cloning


fafalone

How do you feel about cloning?  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about cloning?

    • All cloning is acceptable
      25
    • Only therapeutic cloning
      20
    • All cloning is wrong
      5


Recommended Posts

Why not ameliorate ourselves? Because, as I said, I doubt our ability to make valid judgements concerning what constitutes an ameliorative change. The dictionary holds amelioration to mean "make or become better". Better is a value judgement and highly subjective. Whilst it can be argued that eliminating hereditary conditions such as Huntingdon's chorea makes us better, I would suggest that there is a significant qualitative difference between the elimination of an hereditory pathology, which has the same effect and outcome for all sufferers, and the pre-natal 'amelioration' of a person, which may or may not have the desired result as far as that person is concerned.

 

The problem is that in attempting to do so, we would in effect be second guessing the wants of a third party, i.e. manipulating the genotype of a 'potential person' (as it were) in order to effect a change that WE think is better. Consider the money made by the cosmetics industry. This is made from (e.g.) people with straight hair who want curly hair, people with curly hair who want straight hair, brunettes who want to be blond, blondes who want to be red-heads, those with large busts who want smaller busts (and visa versa)....ad nauseum. Can we presume to know what another person would wish to look like, before they are born?

 

With respect to the genetic involvement in alcoholism or obesity I would say that where a direct causative link can be clearly established (and it hasn't, in either case as far as I'm aware though there appears to be an hereditory component in each, which is different), then manipulation in order to alleviate or remove a condition which is known to have a negative effect is entirely acceptable. If one of the disease causing genes is a part of a polygenic trait, manipulation of which may result in a cosmetic change, then I would suggest caution. One would have to be absolutely certain of possible outcomes (e.g. a cute button nose Vs no nose at all). Given the actual function of an individual gene, predicting the possible outcomes of manipulating many would be extremely difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it acceptable to make ourselves better at all then? If I don't like having blonde hair, why is it acceptable to dye it, but not acceptable to have my genes treated to change it?

 

 

We're not always born the way we want. But who wants to be born with a low iq and no athletic ability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most of your concerns are technical ones: one may have said the same about heart transplants - surely a weeks worth of life is better than none at all if it goes wrong - but now they are commonplace.

 

those that aren't, are things that are suffered anyway, such as all the social pressures to conform with some given ideological/cultural group, which the child may later feel that they do not belong to - everything from religion to gender identity and parents who want their children to follow the family career can be enforced unwillingly onto a child, so the thought of manipulation does not really offer anything significantly new to the mix

 

what is left are pretty much only positives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fafalone

Why is it acceptable to make ourselves better at all then? If I don't like having blonde hair, why is it acceptable to dye it, but not acceptable to have my genes treated to change it? We're not always born the way we want. But who wants to be born with a low iq and no athletic ability?

 

You make a very good point, and you are right. You may wish to dye your hair if you don't wish to be blonde (and it is entirely your right to do so). I would also say that if the technology were available, you have the right to change your hair colour through genetic manipulation. However, my points are that a) you keep using the term 'better'. Why is not blonde 'better' than blonde? and b) in light of the previous point, can you honestly state that you have an equal right to decide hair colour for somebody else?

 

Unfortunately, it seems that very few people are born exactly the way they want (another good point). But I ask, if the objective is to be happy with the way we are, is genetic (or surgical for that matter) manipulation the only way? It seems to me that there are often two approaches; one is to 'cut and paste' ourselves into what we think we should be. The other is to learn to appreciate ourselves for what we are.

 

In light of the current prevalence of non-medical cosmetic surgery, eating disorders (especially the growing prevalence amongst children) and so-on, I suggest that the most pertinent question is not 'how do we force ourselves into the mould of perfection?' but 'why are so many people unhappy with who they are? It just seems to me a better plan in the long term, to address the underlying problem, than to find genetic and surgical interventions for the symptoms.

 

Whilst you are absolutely right in saying that nobody wants to be born with a low IQ and no athletic ability, it is the nature of a population that these attributes are normally distributed; it is a function of genetic variance within a healthy population (this is not to say that IQ and athletic ability are necessarily genetically determined). What would be the result of genetically manipulating the population into a massive negative skew by forcing everybody to the upper tail of the distribution? In the long term, it would make for a very shallow gene pool I think.

 

It is fortunate that a) whilst there may be an herditory component to IQ, no particular gene for intelligence has been isolated. The same goes for athletic ability, therfore b) very few (actual pathology notwithstanding) are born with a significant disadvantage in either. Environmental influences can account for so much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetic variance is not as important as it once was, since there are no predators. Furthermore, manipulating a few characteristics wouldn't impact genetic variance amongst other features.

 

Furhtermore, perfection is also subjective. Not all people would want the same modifications. This would also promote variance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that cloning is wrong either way you see it, from any point of view. think about the outcome of cloning when the future comes. what happens when different "evil" countries get their hands on something like this. if they were to choose to create the perfect army of soldiers, what happens to us? what happens when we push it all to far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other countries breeding supersoldiers is another reason the US can't/won't outlaw it, despite what the Pope told Bush he wanted him to do. The military is already working on the project, and even if it is outlawed wouldn't stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fafalone

Furhtermore, perfection is also subjective. Not all people would want the same modifications. This would also promote variance.

 

This is my point. People would want different modifications, but as any manipulation has to be performed at the egg stage, these people would be deciding what characteristics they want somebody else to have. No chance of choice, or informed consent, just "this is how YOU will be because this is what WE want. You can't see a problem with that?

 

Super-soldiers?...Perfect army? What is a super-soldier? Lets take as givens strength, stamina, fitness, good hearing and eyesight. Is that all it takes? What about intelligence? With intelligence (arguably) comes increased reasoning abilty, but these individuals would need to want to be soldiers and willing to fight. How do you acheive this through genetic manipulation?

 

The most worrying thing here discussion of the 'breeding of super-soldiers' suggests a perception that human clones would not be humen beings. They would not have the same rights as non-clones (e.g. the right not to be a soldier). Imagine on your second or third birthday "happy birthday son...by the way, you're a marine".

People would generate a class of human beings that have no choice, no say in their own lives and who would have provided no consent for what has been done to them. You can't see a problem with any of this?

 

As an aside, genetic varience is as important as ever. There may not be predators in the traditional sense, nonetheless, the greater the varience, the more likely we are (as a species) to survive significant environmental changes. HIV for example. This disease is pandemic. However, a very small number of people have been found, who appear to be immune to the virus. An incredibly small difference in their immune system means that the virus cannot apparently get a hold on them. From these people, it is possible that vaccines may be created that would serve to immunise the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Glider

From these people, it is possible that vaccines may be created that would serve to immunise the rest of us.

 

why bother vaccinating when your immune system can just be upgraded to cope, and then have that improvement handed automatically to your offspring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ista_acoustic

i think that cloning is wrong either way you see it, from any point of view. think about the outcome of cloning when the future comes. what happens when different "evil" countries get their hands on something like this. if they were to choose to create the perfect army of soldiers, what happens to us? what happens when we push it all to far?

 

Stopping the advance of a technology just because you can do something bad with it is a stupid argument. If we had followed that line back in history we wouldn't even have invented spears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Radical Edward

why bother vaccinating when your immune system can just be upgraded to cope, and then have that improvement handed automatically to your offspring?

 

An 'upgrade' is only possible when the precise mechanism that it responsible for the difference is understood. It may be a single point mutation responsible for a difference in a single antibody protein binding site, or it may be a string of non-related gene differences which have an interactive effect, of which the difference in immunological function is merely a byproduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...
Originally posted by rahul_rudani

-It would be better to clone animals than humans because we can use animals for food products and other purposes.

 

OR we could find some way to make food replicators like in Star Trek

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rahul_rudani

wouldn't cloning human beings be a chaos ???

 

-It would be better to clone animals than humans because we can use animals for food products and other purposes. But, human cloning is just absolutely wrong.

 

what do u guys think ???

:bs:

 

why bother though, just for something as trivial as food. Surely it would be cheaper for pigs to reproduce the old fashioned way. as Glider points out, Genetic veriance is important too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The real question is, why should we clone? Science isn't here to further our ability for the heck of it, its here to do what we need to do. The only possible outcomes of cloning are a lowerclass society being created...in the future, without proper leadership, maybe even slaves....its hard for many to accept, but with cloning, we're opening a Pandora's Box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I think that cloning is A OK. So long as the clone is treated like a regular person, and not labeled by society "a clone".

 

Want to hear something funny? (of course u do) My history class was discussing the ethics of cloning (i think i was the only one to completely think it is ok), and one kid said that cloning would be good to make a huge army of people, all with the pysique of Arnold. Practically everyone thought cloning was in essense, someone walking into a box, and 2 of them walking out. Do you think that mind set is shared with the bulk of ppl, and that is why they think it's wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the process of cloning was perfected, I still think it would be wrong to clone in excess. If you were to make clones of anyone, it would take away their individuality. We all need this, or our world would be a boring wasteland. However, if the process is not perfected, than I so not think at all, that the process is acceptable beause people may be cloned, and than mutated. A human should not be "mutated" or altered in any way without permition, you should not be made a human living experiment, unless it is volintary. At this point, though cloning of humans may be possible, it is very hazardess, so it may not be the best idea to make an army of duplicates. However, if we dont try now, we may never know the perfect way to clone. The only way to do this right is trial and error.

 

Just my thaughts and philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I chose "Only for theraputic purpose" but I must HONESTLY state that the main concern i have in this subject is the reprecussions.

 

If we want cloning - to wahtever purpose - we need to make sure it is done correctly, ethically, and doesn't go beyond what we intend for it.

 

Since that is highly unlikely - and cloning is now a fact more than a debate - i just hope humanity won't slide to what is shown in GATTACA.

 

Cloning is bad to the human race in terms of social structure, ethics and evolution (we might know a lot - but we don't know all, and cloning might affect human evolution in such a way that will aventually bring to our extinction... seperate topic if u want me to explain why i think that),.

 

But then again - so is cutting the rainforests, pulluting the atmosphere and sitting too long near a computer (ahem ahem).

 

Maybe the question shouldn't be if we think it's right or wrong - but how we make SURE it doesn't get to a "point of no return" where it is used to evil and unethical purposes.

 

Watch GATTACA. It rules.

 

 

~mooeypoo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giles said in post #21 :

you can't make everybody identical

 

Oh so true, look at Michael Jackson :P <-- :lame:

 

Anyway, to me, cloning is acceptable. However, there's very little point.

 

You can't clone someone at a certain age, so the organ transplant thing is pointless unless you have the clone made at the time you are born. And if you need an organ transplant, what makes you think that the clone's organ doesn't have the same problem that yours does, or won't get it soon enough?

 

Besides that, cloning is VERY counterproductive:

1. We already talk of overpopulation, now we're making more.

2. People in India are starving, add clones to the mix and more people are then starved.

3. Discrimination is bad enough without the 'breed' called clones.

4. Just because a person has your genes doesn't mean they have your personality. You might be making a new mass murderer! And then they may assume that the original was either the one who commited the crime or that the original was thinking the same idea, when the original may be a genius on the verge of cold fusion...

 

The list can go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest moonchild1980

We already develop new organs from stem cells and use in-vitro fertilization. Why do we even need to clone humans. The cloned animals developed serious health problems. I mean if we ever do clone a human, will it have a personality of its own, act just like its host, or walk around like a zombie? I personally don't like the idea of cloning. There are far better ways to improve the human race. The wrong people may start cloning criminals to start an army to take over the world. But thats just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

i think some ppl reject cloning mainly due to their fears.

 

but i don't see y we must clone ppl ....

 

if the clone is going to be exactly the same as u in every way , how can u make it do ur bidding if u urself don want to do it.

 

the clone will be able to think for itself and he will be able reason out the fact that if he does not benifit from the task the owner has given him ..... he will simply reject it.

 

this rule's out the possiblity using a clone as a slave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have no problems taking a cutting from a plant and making a clone, I don`t see why there should be any difference for humans, we are just animals after all, and we have no reservations about cloning them either.

my DNA sequence belongs entirely to ME my own personal copyright, to make a copy of that with my permission would be entirely acceptable. I shed billions of DNA strands per day and never give them a moments thought, and were it possible to donate a finger nail clipping to build me a new pair of legs or organs as I require, I`de be more than pleased to do so as it would merely be an extension of myself anyway, as for a soul, it would obviously have my soul as all else would be identical :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.