Why is cloning people taboo?

[Atreus21]

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.

I said in the hypothetical that the subject gave consent.

 

[dank69]

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.

Haha, those are technical differences IMO, not exactly what I think of as natural differences and not what I think you were implying by natural differences.

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

Yeah, me too, which is why I figured I'd ask the question. I honestly don't see the difference other than perhaps a few benefits to cloning:

Higher chance of no genetic defects.
A single parent wouldn't need to obtain someone else's eggs/sperm to have a kid. Well ovum yes, but egg no, eliminating the need for the DNA issues if there are any...

 

[dank69]

I said in the hypothetical that the subject gave consent.

Why would a healthy person give consent? And assuming a healthy person did give consent, why would that be anyone else's business? And how would you stop such an arrangement anyway?

 

[JEDIYoda]

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

You meant to say because we all have seen Trumpasstic PARK......

 

[Muse]

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

Is it purely religious ignorance?

Not sure. For one thing the gene pool would get strange. What if there were 10,000 men out there with the same genes? You lose the natural order of things in terms of genetic diversity. That could cause some bad things to happen.

Also, how would you feel roaming around a Home Depot and seeing THAT GUY again? Didn't I just see him in aisle 11, or is this a different guy. CREEPY!

 

[dank69]

Not sure. For one thing the gene pool would get strange. What if there were 10,000 men out there with the same genes? You lose the natural order of things in terms of genetic diversity. That could cause some bad things to happen.

Also, how would you feel roaming around a Home Depot and seeing THAT GUY again? Didn't I just see him in aisle 11, or is this a different guy. CREEPY!

Well, I don't think we'd end up with 10000 copies of anyone, or even 10 copies really. You'd have to raise the kids just like any other kids, and you'd be approximately 20 years older or more than your copies. Really wouldn't be all that different than any kid that looks almost 100% like one of their parents when the parent was their age.

I did chuckle a bit at your musings though, hehe.

 

[sdifox]

Haha, those are technical differences IMO, not exactly what I think of as natural differences and not what I think you were implying by natural differences.



Yeah, me too, which is why I figured I'd ask the question. I honestly don't see the difference other than perhaps a few benefits to cloning:

Higher chance of no genetic defects.
A single parent wouldn't need to obtain someone else's eggs/sperm to have a kid. Well ovum yes, but egg no, eliminating the need for the DNA issues if there are any...

Err a clone has the same DNA as you. Test tube babies have a combination of the parents' DNA. Very different.

 

[Atreus21]

Why would a healthy person give consent? And assuming a healthy person did give consent, why would that be anyone else's business? And how would you stop such an arrangement anyway?

Well you proved my point. Divorced of its moral component, we can't easily condemn even cannibalism if done among consenting adults.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

Wouldn't genetic drift be eliminated because... clone?
Kind of figured the result of cloning is 100% genetic match.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

So as others have said... clone is 100% match. While a child is a random mix with at least some drift.
But here's the catch. Genetic diversity. What if we just started making a lot of clones... as in half the population, or more?
We find the ideal genetic mix for hard labor. Poof, all hard laborers are a clone of the ideal form for it. Then they are all driven / enslaved to those jobs.
We could really screw up and or eliminate our great diversity.

 

[dank69]

Well you proved my point. Divorced of its moral component, we can't easily condemn even cannibalism if done among consenting adults.

Of course, but I asked the question to debate the moral components. If the morals are rooted in nothing but religion then they are as invalid as any Islamic "moral" you may disagree with.

 

[dank69]

Err a clone has the same DNA as you. Test tube babies have a combination of the parents' DNA. Very different.

I know those technical differences. If you look at the origin of the "natural" component in this thread he mentioned it as people have a problem with how unnatural it is. I am trying to counter that with my opinion that it isn't really any more "unnatural" than invitro fertilization or identical twins.

 

[dank69]

So as others have said... clone is 100% match. While a child is a random mix with at least some drift.
But here's the catch. Genetic diversity. What if we just started making a lot of clones... as in half the population, or more?
We find the ideal genetic mix for hard labor. Poof, all hard laborers are a clone of the ideal form for it. Then they are all driven / enslaved to those jobs.
We could really screw up and or eliminate our great diversity.

Well, I think you are basically getting into slippery slope territory here. I don't think cloning kids would be all that popular. I imagine it would be an alternative to invitro+donor.

 

[Muse]

So as others have said... clone is 100% match. While a child is a random mix with at least some drift.
But here's the catch. Genetic diversity. What if we just started making a lot of clones... as in half the population, or more?
We find the ideal genetic mix for hard labor. Poof, all hard laborers are a clone of the ideal form for it. Then they are all driven / enslaved to those jobs.
We could really screw up and or eliminate our great diversity.

It would be the new slavery. Maybe they already made the movie, revolt of the clone slaves. I'm sure the sci-fi books have done it, but I'm not up on that literature.

 

[dank69]

It would be the new slavery. Maybe they already made the movie, revolt of the clone slaves. I'm sure the sci-fi books have done it, but I'm not up on that literature.

Slavery would not be allowed. A clone would have the exact same rights as any normal child.

 

[Atreus21]

Of course, but I asked the question to debate the moral components. If the morals are rooted in nothing but religion then they are as invalid as any Islamic "moral" you may disagree with.

Right, and I guess that's the implied point. By invalidating all restrictions on behavior supposedly rooted in religious convictions, we're opening a hell of a can of worms.

The very notion of equality might go out the window. Its bedrock justification is that we are all endowed by our Creator. And though you may disagree with that assessment, there's absolutely no scientific justification for equality under the law. Human beings are empirically not all the same. The claim that we are created equal is dogmatic, and the opposite of scientific.

I don't mean to stray too far off topic, but that's the foremost concern I have with your question.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

Beyond the ethical concerns, there's also a question of 'why' you'd want to make a clone. It'd be more of a novelty than anything else as just because you clone Michael Jordan doesn't mean the clone would want to play basketball. A clone really isn't any more useful than a naturally-born kid, and it comes with a LOT more practical problems.

 

[woolfe9998]

Wouldn't genetic drift be eliminated because... clone?
Kind of figured the result of cloning is 100% genetic match.

I was talking about personality disorders being the result of genetic drift. If genetics are the cause of a personality disorder, and you clone that person, that personal will have the personality disorder regardless of his or her environment.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because it is possible to have too much Boba Fett.

 

[amenx]

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

Didnt read the link, only the comment and thought it was pure sarcasm which is why I liked it. If serious, take my like back .

 

[ivwshane]

I think the question we should ask about cloning is why would we want the ability?

If it’s for organ harvesting then it seems like it would be easier to clone just the organs themselves. But let’s that for some reason that’s not feasible, at that point you’d be purposefully killing a human for organs. That seems highly problematic with today’s laws.
What if clones were brain dead from the start though? What would be the issue then?

If the purpose of cloning isn’t for organ harvesting then what would be its purpose? Unless the clone is brain dead, it’s still a person and would be entitled to the same protections afforded to everyone else.

 

[ondma]

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.

It is also very technically difficult (~95% of attempts fail), and even

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.

Yea, that is the main objection I see to organ cloning. Either it would be the privilege of the rich, or it would drive up insurance costs tremendously.
As for cloning people, you would have the same objections. It also is not the same as in vitro fertilization. In IVF, you have a merging of DNA from two individuals in cells that are designed to merge and grow, while cloning loses any genetic diversity and basically forces the cells merge and grow. I dont know if it has been studied yet (on other species), but I think there would be a serious danger of genetic abnormalities showing up later in life in a cloned individual.

 

[mooncancook]

If two people are cloned from the same DNA, and one of them commits murder, will we be able to convict the real murderer by DNA evidence?

 

[cytg111]

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

Is it purely religious ignorance?

nothing and yes

 

[cytg111]

If two people are cloned from the same DNA, and one of them commits murder, will we be able to convict the real murderer by DNA evidence?

Yes, epigenitics plus dna dont age the same