doing your report on cloning, I need arguments from both sides
- Thread starter amdskip
- Start date
well for stem cell, i think the arguments against it are pretty weak. the stem cells come from discarded fetuses, ones that had no chance of becoming anything but waste. so it's not like you're harming anything... you're just finding treasure in another man's garbage.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
I guess I'm for cloning. Or, more accurately, I'm not against it. I'm constantly amazed by people who think it will lead to the end of the world 
. Years ago (many) there was national debate on the need for washing hands before surgery (the surgeons, not the patients ). At one point Congress got involved and they decided that washing hands wasn't medically needed. One might think that facts and reseach should guide such a decision, but Congress can solve anything!
That same mentality seems to be involved in the Cloning debate. None of them get it, and most of them have seen or read too many bad sci-fi movies where people 'clone' themsleves and windup with someone at the same age with the same memories (etc) as the original person. A cloned child, as I see it, is exactly the same as any child with exactly the same rights (no more, no less). The only difference between a 'cloned' child and a 'normal' one is the source of the original biological material used to create it.
My 2 cents,
Bill
. Years ago (many) there was national debate on the need for washing hands before surgery (the surgeons, not the patients ). At one point Congress got involved and they decided that washing hands wasn't medically needed. One might think that facts and reseach should guide such a decision, but Congress can solve anything!That same mentality seems to be involved in the Cloning debate. None of them get it, and most of them have seen or read too many bad sci-fi movies where people 'clone' themsleves and windup with someone at the same age with the same memories (etc) as the original person. A cloned child, as I see it, is exactly the same as any child with exactly the same rights (no more, no less). The only difference between a 'cloned' child and a 'normal' one is the source of the original biological material used to create it.
My 2 cents,
Bill
I'll just think out loud, because I don't have much time to form a logical argument here.
I think most people who are opposed to cloning due to some logical basis are presuming that there is a potential for great harm to humanity if it gets out of hand. At the moment I can't think of any application of cloning which wouldn't also involve genetic manipulation that would be imminently dangerous. I think for it to be really scary you'd have to involve the genetic manipulation stuff. When those two practices are combined, it could become very dangerous. Imagine a genetically superior human that is found through numerous experiments in genetic manipulation, and then this individual is cloned ad nauseam.
Another thought is in regards to class divergence. Imagine some rich guy decides that he doesn't want to leave his money to anyone except himself. So this guy clones himself, writes himself into his will, then dies. I guess I'd have to flesh out this idea a little more to determine if it would be dangerous or highly immoral.
However, I think that both things, and really any potentially damaging application, is either controllable by law or even if banned impossible to stop in illegal channels. Much like the gun control argument where criminals can still get guns if they are banned.
I think most people who are opposed to cloning due to some logical basis are presuming that there is a potential for great harm to humanity if it gets out of hand. At the moment I can't think of any application of cloning which wouldn't also involve genetic manipulation that would be imminently dangerous. I think for it to be really scary you'd have to involve the genetic manipulation stuff. When those two practices are combined, it could become very dangerous. Imagine a genetically superior human that is found through numerous experiments in genetic manipulation, and then this individual is cloned ad nauseam.
Another thought is in regards to class divergence. Imagine some rich guy decides that he doesn't want to leave his money to anyone except himself. So this guy clones himself, writes himself into his will, then dies. I guess I'd have to flesh out this idea a little more to determine if it would be dangerous or highly immoral.
However, I think that both things, and really any potentially damaging application, is either controllable by law or even if banned impossible to stop in illegal channels. Much like the gun control argument where criminals can still get guns if they are banned.
overall... i'm very against cloning of humans....
but if it becames common practice... i'd imagine the chances of having a threesome with twins will increase.
but if it becames common practice... i'd imagine the chances of having a threesome with twins will increase.
> So this guy clones himself, writes himself into his will, then dies. I guess I'd have to flesh out this idea a little more to determine if it would be dangerous or highly immoral.
This is the logic I don't follow. He might clone himself, and he might even think he's 'leaving the money to himself'. But that child is not him, and won't become him. Genetically they are twins, nothing more or less. So worst case he's leaving all of his money to his twin.
Bill
This is the logic I don't follow. He might clone himself, and he might even think he's 'leaving the money to himself'. But that child is not him, and won't become him. Genetically they are twins, nothing more or less. So worst case he's leaving all of his money to his twin.
Bill
Therapeutic cloning (i.e. harvesting stem cells for research, tissue, and organ growth) = Yes, good idea.
Reproductive cloning (i.e. implanting a cloned embryo with the goal of producing an entire human being) = No, bad idea.
Honestly, we are putting the cart before the horse here. The issue of whether reproductive cloning will ever be a good idea is definitely something to consider, but the real question is whether it is a good idea right now. IMHO, there is no way in hell that we should be conducting human cloning experiments (because that's what it amounts to...experiments) given our current level of knowledge on the topic. Cloning humans now, when most, if not all, trials on simpler organisms have failed would be a gross ethical violation.
Every time we run a new cloning experiment novel complications arise. Cloned animals display elevated risks for circulatory and respiratory disease, obesity, deformities...and that's just the beginning. One of my favorite examples is Gurdon's frog cloning experiments (via nuclear transfer) that produced beautiful tadpoles...but guess what? They never matured into adults...remaining instead as tadpoles for their entire existence. Granted, that was decades ago and our knowledge has improved somewhat, and we are using a different technique now, but the fact that we still don't know why that happened perfectly illustrates how little we do know about cloning. What would happen if human clones never underwent puberty? That would be appalling.
Even the world-renowned Dolly was the result of 276 failed attempts at sheep cloning...and now this "successful" clone has developed several health problems, and for an unrelated reason will probably experience a miserably shortened lifespan (1/3-1/2 normal). Will the first human clones begin dying off in their late twenties? Or will they survive only to suffer numerous diseases and defects through middle age?
Frankly, the concept of cloning humans at this stage is so unethical that I find it unbelievable we are even considering it. Patience is a virtue; there is no dire need to rush into reproductive cloning without *many* more years of animal research. Scientists like Antorini and Zavos represent the worst of the field IMO...they are essentially fame-starved madmen. They seek only to write their names in the history books as the pioneers of human cloning, regardless of the inevitable consequences for the clones (human guinea pigs) themselves, or the mothers for that matter. I would liken what they are doing to injecting fetuses with a cocktail of experimental drugs that have previously been tested on animals and found to cause dangerous health problems and developmental defects in the test subjects. These men KNOW this experiment will fail but care nothing for the welfare of the test subjects, except insofar as it advances their own careers. I can only hope that they are ostracized from the scientific community (already in progress) and brought up on charges for their misconduct (unlikely...unfortunately).
Reproductive cloning (i.e. implanting a cloned embryo with the goal of producing an entire human being) = No, bad idea.
Honestly, we are putting the cart before the horse here. The issue of whether reproductive cloning will ever be a good idea is definitely something to consider, but the real question is whether it is a good idea right now. IMHO, there is no way in hell that we should be conducting human cloning experiments (because that's what it amounts to...experiments) given our current level of knowledge on the topic. Cloning humans now, when most, if not all, trials on simpler organisms have failed would be a gross ethical violation.
Every time we run a new cloning experiment novel complications arise. Cloned animals display elevated risks for circulatory and respiratory disease, obesity, deformities...and that's just the beginning. One of my favorite examples is Gurdon's frog cloning experiments (via nuclear transfer) that produced beautiful tadpoles...but guess what? They never matured into adults...remaining instead as tadpoles for their entire existence. Granted, that was decades ago and our knowledge has improved somewhat, and we are using a different technique now, but the fact that we still don't know why that happened perfectly illustrates how little we do know about cloning. What would happen if human clones never underwent puberty? That would be appalling.
Even the world-renowned Dolly was the result of 276 failed attempts at sheep cloning...and now this "successful" clone has developed several health problems, and for an unrelated reason will probably experience a miserably shortened lifespan (1/3-1/2 normal). Will the first human clones begin dying off in their late twenties? Or will they survive only to suffer numerous diseases and defects through middle age?
Frankly, the concept of cloning humans at this stage is so unethical that I find it unbelievable we are even considering it. Patience is a virtue; there is no dire need to rush into reproductive cloning without *many* more years of animal research. Scientists like Antorini and Zavos represent the worst of the field IMO...they are essentially fame-starved madmen. They seek only to write their names in the history books as the pioneers of human cloning, regardless of the inevitable consequences for the clones (human guinea pigs) themselves, or the mothers for that matter. I would liken what they are doing to injecting fetuses with a cocktail of experimental drugs that have previously been tested on animals and found to cause dangerous health problems and developmental defects in the test subjects. These men KNOW this experiment will fail but care nothing for the welfare of the test subjects, except insofar as it advances their own careers. I can only hope that they are ostracized from the scientific community (already in progress) and brought up on charges for their misconduct (unlikely...unfortunately).
If you are talking about cloning humans the question is moot. We do not, as yet, have the technology to do it.
OREOSpeedwagon
Diamond Member
- May 30, 2001
- 8,485
- 1
- 81
<< If you are talking about cloning humans the question is moot. We do not, as yet, have the technology to do it. >>
We have the technology to do it, it's basically the same procedure used to clone dolly the sheep. But I guess I'm against human cloning. People are saying that we should have clones of ourselves in case we need an organ at some time or another, but you have to realize that clones are people too, they are just copies. But I think it'd be weird having copies of myself
> But I think it'd be weird having copies of myself
They are no more copies of yourself than if you had a twin.
> If you are talking about cloning humans the question is moot. We do not, as yet, have the technology to do it
Well I guess we'll know if 9 months about that (an Italian Dr. has claimed to have 3 clones implanted)
Bill
They are no more copies of yourself than if you had a twin.
> If you are talking about cloning humans the question is moot. We do not, as yet, have the technology to do it
Well I guess we'll know if 9 months about that (an Italian Dr. has claimed to have 3 clones implanted)
Bill
It might be nice, at the end of our natural lives, to plop our consciousness into younger clones. However that would be violating the life of another and thus unethical. And I don't believe you could place your consciousness into a fetus or barely developed clone and have that clone live for very long. No immortality for you, not via cloning at any rate.
<thinking out loud>Cloning humans could be like pirating software. If someone did clone me, we still wouldn't be identical, because the clone wouldn't have the same mitochondrial DNA that I do, unless they used my mother, which probably wouldn't happen.</thinking out loud>
Message OptionsSubscribe to ThreadE-Mail ThreadView Users ProfilePrivate Message UserPrint Thread
for: wouldn't it be cool to have an army of yourselves?
heh and an army of nannies to raise your army of yourselves.. heh. probably become all bitter and hate u
It might be nice, at the end of our natural lives, to plop our consciousness into younger clones. However that would be violating the life of another and thus unethical. And I don't believe you could place your consciousness into a fetus or barely developed clone and have that clone live for very long. No immortality for you, not via cloning at any rate.
well, it probably wouldn't work that way. assuming you could transfer consciousness you probably would want to transfer into a fully formed brain whatever that means cloning replacement body parts would be neat though. no more donor shortage problem
for: wouldn't it be cool to have an army of yourselves?
heh and an army of nannies to raise your army of yourselves.. heh. probably become all bitter and hate u
It might be nice, at the end of our natural lives, to plop our consciousness into younger clones. However that would be violating the life of another and thus unethical. And I don't believe you could place your consciousness into a fetus or barely developed clone and have that clone live for very long. No immortality for you, not via cloning at any rate.
well, it probably wouldn't work that way. assuming you could transfer consciousness you probably would want to transfer into a fully formed brain whatever that means
cloning replacement body parts would be neat though. no more donor shortage problemTRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter