Why is cloning people taboo?

[dank69]

What is so different between a clone vs a regular invitro fertilized egg, philosophically?

Is it purely religious ignorance?

 

[soundforbjt]

Would you like a clone of Trump running around? I rest my case.

 

[shortylickens]

You'd have to read a buttload of science fiction, but basically it creates a lot of moral and ethical dilemmas that outweigh the benefits.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Would you like a clone of Trump running around? I rest my case.

ThAT`s the way to close a thread on the second post!! That has to be a record!! Good job!!
I award you the Jedi Golden thumb award --

 

[Atreus21]

What is so different between a clone vs a regular invitro fertilized egg, philosophically?

Is it purely religious ignorance?

Because we've all seen Jurassic Park. It ends badly.

Why is human cloning considered unethical?

Answer (1 of 56): There are three main problems associated with human cloning and human gene-editing. In fact, even with animals, it’s quite controversial. 1. It’s not perfect, nothing is perfect: Even a spacecraft that costs hundreds of millions of dollars can have a small software glitch that ...

www.quora.com

 

[dank69]

Would you like a clone of Trump running around? I rest my case.

Why would you think a Trump clone would end up as deranged as he is? Trump is clearly the result of his upbringing and that would be impossible to duplicate. A Trump clone raised by Trump himself would end up effectively no different than any one of his kids.

 

[dank69]

You'd have to read a buttload of science fiction, but basically it creates a lot of moral and ethical dilemmas that outweigh the benefits.

Please list one.

 

[dank69]

Because we've all seen Jurassic Park. It ends badly.

Why is human cloning considered unethical?

Answer (1 of 56): There are three main problems associated with human cloning and human gene-editing. In fact, even with animals, it’s quite controversial. 1. It’s not perfect, nothing is perfect: Even a spacecraft that costs hundreds of millions of dollars can have a small software glitch that ...

www.quora.com

Okay so you probably aren't the best person to argue with about this as you still oppose abortion.

 

[Atreus21]

Okay so you probably aren't the best person to argue with about this as you still oppose abortion.

Yes sir I certainly do.

To your question though, plenty of practices are discouraged only because of an ick factor, that probably wouldn't hold up under stone-cold logical analyses. Cannibalism, for example. Devoid of the moral horror of eating other human beings, the only rational objection I can see is that it happens not to be nutritious and can be dangerous to ingest (to my knowledge). But if in fact parts of humans were safely edible, and the subject somehow consented to it, on what rational grounds would we object to it?

Not to change the subject.

 

[woolfe9998]

Why would you think a Trump clone would end up as deranged as he is? Trump is clearly the result of his upbringing and that would be impossible to duplicate. A Trump clone raised by Trump himself would end up effectively no different than any one of his kids.

Ah, but that depends on the thorny nature-nurture debate. There's considerable literature on the question of whether personality disorders have roots in biology, one's environment, or some combination of the two. It isn't uncommon for two children raised in the same household and one ends up a psychopath while the other ends up a gentle pacifist. With environmental differences being minimal, the conclusion is the differences are related to genetic drift, i.e. a biological lottery.

The Nature (And Nurture) of Personality Disorders - PubMed

Personality disorders have a long history in the literature but a short scientific history. The point prevalence of personality disorders is 10%, but the lifetime prevalence is probably 30-40%. Genetic factors contribute to around 40-50% of the variation in the development of personality...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Which means that a clone of Trump is more likely - though not guaranteed - to be a grade A douchebag than just any random person.

 

[IronWing]

Upon what basis would the person to be cloned be selected?

 

[woolfe9998]

Because we've all seen Jurassic Park. It ends badly.

Why is human cloning considered unethical?

Answer (1 of 56): There are three main problems associated with human cloning and human gene-editing. In fact, even with animals, it’s quite controversial. 1. It’s not perfect, nothing is perfect: Even a spacecraft that costs hundreds of millions of dollars can have a small software glitch that ...

www.quora.com

Could you get behind the cloning of organs as opposed to whole humans? Because if we're talking about cloning today, that's really the only seriously proposed application of it. If at age 60 you can get cloned replacement versions of your heart, liver, kidneys and lungs which are the equivalent of what your original organs were at age 20, it would be a huge advancement in longevity for the species.

If we're going to talk about ethical objections to cloning, it's important to center the discussion around that sort of application, rather than the science fiction notion of cloning whole people.

 

[Atreus21]

Could you get behind the cloning of organs as opposed to whole humans? Because if we're talking about cloning today, that's really the only seriously proposed application of it. If at age 60 you can get cloned replacement versions of your heart, liver, kidneys and lungs which are the equivalent of what your original organs were at age 20, it would be a huge advancement in longevity for the species.

If we're going to talk about ethical objections to cloning, it's important to center the discussion around that sort of application, rather than the science fiction notion of cloning whole people.

Well I'm pretty sure the OP is challenging why cloning whole people is off-limits.

I'm certainly in favor of cloning individual organs.

 

[dank69]

Ah, but that depends on the thorny nature-nurture debate. There's considerable literature on the question of whether personality disorders have roots in biology, one's environment, or some combination of the two. It isn't uncommon for two children raised in the same household and one ends up a psychopath while the other ends up a gentle pacifist. With environmental differences being minimal, the conclusion is the differences are related to genetic drift, i.e. a biological lottery.

The Nature (And Nurture) of Personality Disorders - PubMed

Personality disorders have a long history in the literature but a short scientific history. The point prevalence of personality disorders is 10%, but the lifetime prevalence is probably 30-40%. Genetic factors contribute to around 40-50% of the variation in the development of personality...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Which means that a clone of Trump is more likely - though not guaranteed - to be a grade A douchebag than just any random person.

Okay, so assuming that Trump's personality disorders are 100% genetic, which I think is ridiculous but will grant it for the sake of argument, restrictions on cloning people with any serious genetic disorders should be effective, no?

Now, regarding nature vs. nurture, the "environment" a kid is raised in is a tiny portion of the overall environment. Peers, experiences, etc. vary immensely unless they are literally joined at the hip their entire lives. A single traumatic incident can set off a vastly different outcome.

 

[dank69]

Yes sir I certainly do.

To your question though, plenty of practices are discouraged only because of an ick factor, that probably wouldn't hold up under stone-cold logical analyses. Cannibalism, for example. Devoid of the moral horror of eating other human beings, the only rational objection I can see is that it happens not to be nutritious and can be dangerous to ingest (to my knowledge). But if in fact parts of humans were safely edible, and the subject somehow consented to it, on what rational grounds would we object to it?

Not to change the subject.

Well you need to kill the person in order to eat them. That would be the first barrier. Even if someone died, they'd need to have given previous consent for you to eat their remains...

I think you need to attack this from a different angle.

 

[woolfe9998]

Okay, so assuming that Trump's personality disorders are 100% genetic, which I think is ridiculous but will grant it for the sake of argument, restrictions on cloning people with any serious genetic disorders should be effective, no?

Doubtful in Trump's case that it's 100% genetic. His dad was a total douche, and he mentored Trump in the business world. I have to think that played a role. The literature says it's a mixture, while for a given individual one or the other might predominate.

Not interested in discussing ethical issues with whole person cloning. Organ cloning is for now where this is going, and the debate over it is looming, at least if we can believe that we're really on the cusp of being able to do it.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well I'm pretty sure the OP is challenging why cloning whole people is off-limits.

I'm certainly in favor of cloning individual organs.

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.

 

[dank69]

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.

I don't even see an issue with encouraging unhealthy behavior, honestly.

 

[kage69]

Most people have an intrinsic respect for nature, and are suspicious of messing with it in such ways.

The issue is an ethical minefield with far reaching implications. Will people be allowed to clone themselves for the express purpose of harvesting perfectly matching organs? Is the clone a possession or a person? Maybe they find a way to grow specific organs in a dish, no host, either way or both, what does this mean for our already daunting food needs for the future? Without lifespans being lengthened via cloning, we are projected to have 10 billion people by 2050.

Applied to humans cloning would be more of an individual benefit, while society would get screwed. Particularly if we're talking about disastrous assholes like Il Douche or Moscow Mitch, for instance. The show Altered Carbon comes to mind. I recommend watching Season 1. Season 2 much less so.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think most people don’t want another them running around, even if the upbrininging might be totally different. Maybe it’s an individualism type thing.

 

[snoopy7548]

Yes sir I certainly do.

To your question though, plenty of practices are discouraged only because of an ick factor, that probably wouldn't hold up under stone-cold logical analyses. Cannibalism, for example. Devoid of the moral horror of eating other human beings, the only rational objection I can see is that it happens not to be nutritious and can be dangerous to ingest (to my knowledge). But if in fact parts of humans were safely edible, and the subject somehow consented to it, on what rational grounds would we object to it?

Not to change the subject.

Well, some people eat pussy.

 

[woolfe9998]

Most people have an intrinsic respect for nature, and are suspicious of messing with it in such ways.

The issue is an ethical minefield with far reaching implications. Will people be allowed to clone themselves for the express purpose of harvesting perfectly matching organs? Is the clone a possession or a person? Maybe they find a way to grow specific organs in a dish, no host, either way or both, what does this mean for our already daunting food needs for the future? Without lifespans being lengthened via cloning, we are projected to have 10 billion people by 2050.

Applied to humans cloning would be more of an individual benefit, while society would get screwed. Particularly if we're talking about disastrous assholes like Il Douche or Moscow Mitch, for instance. The show Altered Carbon comes to mind. I recommend watching Season 1. Season 2 much less so.

I think the idea is they can grow cloned organs in a lab. No need to clone the whole person for harvesting as that would be a serious ethical problem.

 

[dank69]

Most people have an intrinsic respect for nature, and are suspicious of messing with it in such ways.

Explain the difference from a nature perspective between a clone and an invitro child?

The issue is an ethical minefield with far reaching implications. Will people be allowed to clone themselves for the express purpose of harvesting perfectly matching organs? Is the clone a possession or a person? Maybe they find a way to grow specific organs in a dish, no host, either way or both, what does this mean for our already daunting food needs for the future? Without lifespans being lengthened via cloning, we are projected to have 10 billion people by 2050.

Applied to humans cloning would be more of an individual benefit, while society would get screwed. Particularly if we're talking about disastrous assholes like Il Douche or Moscow Mitch, for instance. The show Altered Carbon comes to mind. I recommend watching Season 1. Season 2 much less so.

For the sake of argument, let's assume a clone would be considered exactly the same as any child. You are only allowed to create a clone if you intend to raise it as your own child, or someone else wants to raise it as their adopted child.

 

[kage69]

I think the idea is they can grow cloned organs in a lab. No need to clone the whole person for harvesting as that would be a serious ethical problem.

That would likely account for the majority yes, but I think it depends on what the target is. Remember that there are people out there who take cryonics quite seriously, now, that there are heads already waiting.

I'm relatively sure they weren't thinking of getting their Arroooooo on, a la Nixon in Futurama.

 

[kage69]

Explain the difference from a nature perspective between a clone and an invitro child?

Well from my perspective cloning would be reproduction asexually, without genetic alteration. An invitro child is still created with the material of two parents, it's just done outside the mother. Later, it's plowed back into the field. Tada.

One is seen as babymaking assistance. The other is a Pandora's Box.

For the sake of argument, let's assume a clone would be considered exactly the same as any child. You are only allowed to create a clone if you intend to raise it as your own child, or someone else wants to raise it as their adopted child.

This is the one I am the most familiar with, though I'm still not sure how I feel about it.