Why is cloning people taboo?

[Ichinisan]

Twins are one thing, very different from the idea of cloning 1000+ individuals with identical DNA. They could be subjugated, at least theoretically, and tasked the same to make a workforce that become 2nd class citizens. I'm sure this has been treated in books and likely movies.

There's nothing about cloning that makes 1,000 babies any more manageable than 1,000 IVF babies or 1,000 naturally conceived babies.

Cloning does not enable greater quantities than IVF or natural conception. That's just science fiction. Understand?

 

[Muse]

I already constrained this thought experiment to exclude slavery. A clone would have to have all the same rights as anyone else. If you can't keep within the constraints then you aren't actually contributing.

You can maybe constrain your brain, but don't try to constrain mine. I'm a free thinking man.

 

[Ajay]

Is it really that much more difficult than IVF? I have to plead ignorance here. What causes cloning to have a higher failure rate than IVF? Is it just lack of experience at this point? Were there lots of failures when we were first developing IVF? If so, why were the failures acceptable then?

Well, I didn't look up the failure rate for IVF, but there is one, otherwise, why select multiple ovum from every each woman (other than prior to surgical removal of the ovaries). When Dolly was first cloned, the success rate was horrible, less than 1% viability. Currently, complex mammals are cloned at a success rate of around 70-80%. The main problem seems to be issues with the epigenetics of somatic nuclei being implanted in the ovum. This results in abnormal development, which would be pretty horrific in the case of humans (for no real benefit, IMHO).

I think, as has been mentioned here already, the development of induced pluripotent stems cells is the most favorable field of study due to it's impact on regenerative medicine. Need a kidney, grow one, same for a liver or a heart or a lung. These would definitely be life extending and quality of life advancements. I'm 100% on board with this sort of research.

I've follow this stuff on and off for years, but the basics can be found on Wikipedia for those who want more background and that's where I grabbed a couple of statistics. I'm not a geneticist or a bioethicist, but I'm not in favor of an undisciplined approach to science that has no collective ethical governance that reign in study to the most needful advances that do the least harm. We are already doing genetic screening of embryos, the obvious next step is genetic modification (already done in china) - but this science is so complex and has so much potential to change what, in fact, a human is - that we need to decades of research on the long term effects in less complex organism before we venture forward. That, and advancements if computational power and techniques will allow simulations that greatly expand our understanding without harm or risk to a single organism.

Going back to human cloning, the fundamental problem for me is why. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it is reasonable to do so. I see absolutely no reasonable need for it.

 

[cytg111]

Try getting a jury to wrap their heads around methylation rates and such.

- All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain

 

[woolfe9998]

Why would it be a problem that the 1% could destroy their organs and make/buy more of them?

No, it would be a problem if the 1% could pay to live to 120 when no one else can afford it. You think people wouldn't complain?

 

[Ichinisan]

No, it would be a problem if the 1% could pay to live to 120 when no one else can afford it. You think people wouldn't complain?

LOL! A major advancement would be a "problem?" Did you ever notice that new tech is always initially expensive and exclusive before that market is saturated and it becomes practical / possible / available for everyone?

That initial market incentivizes the development of new advancements in the first place.

I guess we shouldn't have developed computers or smartphones or electricity or running water because only the elites could have that stuff initially - and other people wanted It before they were able to get it.

 

[woolfe9998]

LOL! A major advancement would be a "problem?" Did you ever notice that new tech is always initially expensive and exclusive before that market is saturated and it becomes practical / possible / available for everyone?

That initial market incentivizes the development of new advancements in the first place.

I guess we shouldn't have developed computers or smartphones or electricity or running water because only the elites could have that stuff initially - and other people wanted It before they were able to get it.

This is what I said earlier in the thread:

The main issue I see with organ cloning is it may encourage unhealthy behavior. Smoke up, Johhny! We'll all get new lungs in 20 years!

Also, it will likely be expensive and possibly not covered by insurance, making it out of reach beyond the 1%.

I do support developing the tech though. Of course.

Which evidently you either didn't read or you're purposefully tearing down a straw man. I strongly support developing this technology. I do, however, foresee conflict developing in relation to class, which is a logical extension of the class conflict which already exists.

In the future, when replying to me, engage my argument, not some phantom caricature of my argument conjured up in your addled brain, or else don't bother to reply.

 

[Ichinisan]

This is what I said earlier in the thread:



Which evidently you either didn't read or you're purposefully tearing down a straw man. I strongly support developing this technology. I do, however, foresee conflict developing in relation to class, which is a logical extension of the class conflict which already exists.

In the future, when replying to me, engage my argument, not some phantom caricature of my argument conjured up in your addled brain, or else don't bother to reply.

As I said before: I don't see the "issue" with encouraging unhealthy behavior in that example.

I'm trying to find any valid argument against cloning. Anything at all.

 

[dank69]

Well, I didn't look up the failure rate for IVF, but there is one, otherwise, why select multiple ovum from every each woman (other than prior to surgical removal of the ovaries). When Dolly was first cloned, the success rate was horrible, less than 1% viability. Currently, complex mammals are cloned at a success rate of around 70-80%. The main problem seems to be issues with the epigenetics of somatic nuclei being implanted in the ovum. This results in abnormal development, which would be pretty horrific in the case of humans (for no real benefit, IMHO).

I think, as has been mentioned here already, the development of induced pluripotent stems cells is the most favorable field of study due to it's impact on regenerative medicine. Need a kidney, grow one, same for a liver or a heart or a lung. These would definitely be life extending and quality of life advancements. I'm 100% on board with this sort of research.

I've follow this stuff on and off for years, but the basics can be found on Wikipedia for those who want more background and that's where I grabbed a couple of statistics. I'm not a geneticist or a bioethicist, but I'm not in favor of an undisciplined approach to science that has no collective ethical governance that reign in study to the most needful advances that do the least harm. We are already doing genetic screening of embryos, the obvious next step is genetic modification (already done in china) - but this science is so complex and has so much potential to change what, in fact, a human is - that we need to decades of research on the long term effects in less complex organism before we venture forward. That, and advancements if computational power and techniques will allow simulations that greatly expand our understanding without harm or risk to a single organism.

Going back to human cloning, the fundamental problem for me is why. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it is reasonable to do so. I see absolutely no reasonable need for it.

Okay, so I skimmed some info specific to epigenetics and cloning. Very interesting stuff, however it seems to me that it is only relevant to this ethical discussion in a very limited sense, at least at this point in our technological development.

To me, as someone whose only objection to abortion is that I would prefer any other alternative if at all possible, the only place these concerns would cross into a grey area would be abnormalities that were undetectable before delivery. Women are allowed to abort a "normal" fetus right up until birth in extreme cases of danger to mother's or child's health. I assume this includes, and is primarily due to, serious birth defects detected late in the pregnancy.

With that in mind, assuming you at least concur up to this point, I would also assume we could iron out most problems on animals and get some seriously educated guesses as to the final risks before we even discuss legalizing research to begin on humans.

 

[dank69]

So that's it? Nobody has a valid objection to cloning assuming a clone is treated no differently than any other IVF baby?

 

[zzyzxroad]

There have only been two primates cloned to date right? Probably 50+ years to continue this discussion.

My guess is pets cloning will be the first commercial application.

 

[Ajay]

So that's it? Nobody has a valid objection to cloning assuming a clone is treated no differently than any other IVF baby?

Well my philosophy on human cloning is informed by Catholic reasoning on the dignity of the human person and human life. I think this is what you are referring to as religious ignorance. Hence, as this is the prevailing stance of this forum, there is no point in me arguing a different point of view. Cloning won't be the worst of it, permanent editing of germ cell line will fundamentally alter what a human being is - cloning is just a stepping stone.

 

[woolfe9998]

So that's it? Nobody has a valid objection to cloning assuming a clone is treated no differently than any other IVF baby?

Not really, no. What is your objection to it? Maybe you'll point out something I hadn't considered.

Then again, I see no point in whole person cloning anyway. As has been pointed out by others, we can conceive babies naturally or with IVF. We don't need to clone. As I said on page one, organ cloning is the one which can really benefit humanity a lot, which is why I think that's going to be what you'll see first.

 

[dank69]

Not really, no. What is your objection to it? Maybe you'll point out something I hadn't considered.

Then again, I see no point in whole person cloning anyway. As has been pointed out by others, we can conceive babies naturally or with IVF. We don't need to clone. As I said on page one, organ cloning is the one which can really benefit humanity a lot, which is why I think that's going to be what you'll see first.

I don't have an objection to it. I was just wondering if there is any reason we shouldn't do it. Really the only benefit I see is as an alternative to finding a donor of the opposite sex.

 

[dank69]

Well my philosophy on human cloning is informed by Catholic reasoning on the dignity of the human person and human life. I think this is what you are referring to as religious ignorance. Hence, as this is the prevailing stance of this forum, there is no point in me arguing a different point of view. Cloning won't be the worst of it, permanent editing of germ cell line will fundamentally alter what a human being is - cloning is just a stepping stone.

I mean, we can discuss it if you want. It isn't like you think a clone would share the same soul as the original, right?

 

[Ajay]

I mean, we can discuss it if you want. It isn't like you think a clone would share the same soul as the original, right?

No, don’t really want to discuss it. Discussing religious topics around here is like asking to be beaten with clubs. But thanks anyway. Oh, and no, nothing about sharing souls or anything.