Clones:- Right or Wrong?

[Pangloss]

David Brin explores this a bit in "Kiln People", which is a good read (nominated for a Hugo, as I recall).

[Aardvark]

David Brin explores this a bit in "Kiln People", which is a good read (nominated for a Hugo, as I recall).

 

Could you give a quick run down of what he postulates?

 

On a somewhat related note i recall a book by Iain M Banks in which computers had developed conciousness. When a computer was faced with destruction it could copy its programming to another computer thus preserving its life. On one occasion the computer facing destruction copied itself but then avoided destruction leaving it with a curious question about which one was the real 'it'.

[Newtonian]

I see no problem with cloning,however circumspection should be the in word.While it is a scientific achievement worthy of merit.I would feel more comfortable if generation after generation was observed first.I think as we do not know the pitfalls of genetic manipulation a lack of forethought could be disasterous.

I certainly believe it should be kept well away from the food chain for decades.Who knows what the repercussions will be on our bodies.I recall Dolly the sheep having a few problems.

For all we know we could have a degenerate effect on our own cells.And end up aging faster or prone to cancers.

[Aardvark]

I certainly believe it should be kept well away from the food chain for decades.Who knows what the repercussions will be on our bodies.I recall Dolly the sheep having a few problems.

For all we know we could have a degenerate effect on our own cells.And end up aging faster or prone to cancers.

 

The possiblity of rapid ageing or auto immune problems is recognised for the cloned animal. However there would not appear to be any mechanism for those problems to be transferred to someone simply eating the cloned animal. Genetic problems wouldn't be transmitted via digestion.

[Newtonian]

But eating a genetically manipulated animal,without neccersary experimentation isnt good practice.Prions are quite nasty!

I remember a certain minister shoving a burger in his sons mouth and saying"theres nothing wrong with beef".

[jdurg]

As a Type I, Insulin Dependent Diabetic, I am 100% for the cloning of organs as replacements. As I get older, my kidneys won't function like they normally should and I will most likely end up dying because of kidney failure no matter how well I control my diabetes. By having a cloned kidney available, I could avoid the premature death due to renal failure. Also, a new pancreas could be cloned for me to not only remove my diabetes for the time being, but to provide a great deal of research into the cause of the disease as my immune system would probably want to kill the islet cells once more. Science could then see what it is that triggers the autoimmune response leading to Type I IDDM.

 

For the person who said it was not what God would want, what if I don't believe in God? How come your beliefs and opinions are right and mine are not? If you believe that the cloning of organs for therapeutic reasons is wrong, then when you are dying from hepatic necrosis you can just refuse to accept a cloned organ. That's your perogitive. How is my acception of a new kidney, or pancreas, or liver created from my own cells and NOT yours going to affect you? If you're right and I'm wrong, then fine. I'll burn in hell for enternity. But we don't know who is right about this religious stuff and I will not have my life controlled by someone's 'opinions and beliefs' without any hard evidence. This is what drives me so crazy about people who are religiously fanatic. Why can't they mind their own business in relation to things that have absolutely no effect on their lives? (Therapeutic cloning, assisted suicides, gay marriages, etc. etc.). Sorry for being off-topic.

 

For therapeutic clonining I am 100% for it. I think it can help so many people return or experience what a 'normal' life is. For reproductive cloning, I see absolutely no possible benefits of it; only drawbacks. Besides, that would kind of take all the fun out of human reproduction.

[britwithtea]

well' date=' lets say that you died, Oh well, Ill just go to the store and get me a new person, no biggie.

 

se what i mean, i takes away your individuality, it makes you replacable, and then it turns people into a comodity, thats why its wrong.[/quote']

 

 

actualy your expinces are what makes you you, soyoud need to burn in your brain pattern ito a fully grown clone, so its brain must be blank - not allive, so you have to animate it, might as well just came back ot like in the first place.

[jdurg]

Very true. Again, a clone would be exactly like an identical twin. I know plenty of identical twins are they are VERY individual even though their DNA is exactly the same.

[In My Memory]

I personally find the desire to preserve a copy of ones self for years in the future as an interesting reason to favor cloning. Obviously, the clone wouldnt be a replacement for the person she was cloned from, but the sentiment is suprisingly close to the non-profit motivations that a person might have when writing an autobiography.

 

Very true. Again, a clone would be exactly like an identical twin. I know plenty of identical twins are they are VERY individual even though their DNA is exactly the same.

My sister and I are so dissimilar that you probably wouldnt know we were twins. (My guess is that it must be because we were never dressed alike as children.)

[malagen]

i've just study this subject at school in the reprodution technology chapter

 

Therapeutic cloning=good. Saves lives.

Reproductive cloning=not good, because my religion teach me that every single one of living life in the earth have a soul, for humans this soul is blown when a fetus is 4 months old. and i'm not sure if a clonning has a soul....

 

btw, i think clonning is similiar to tissue culture, right?

[Aardvark]

Therapeutic cloning=good. Saves lives.

Reproductive cloning=not good' date=' because my religion teach me that every single one of living life in the earth have a soul, for humans this soul is blown when a fetus is 4 months old. and i'm not sure if a clonning has a soul....[/quote']

 

Why do you think that a clone wouldn't have a soul?

 

If every living life on earth has a soul than presumably clones would have as well.

[Sayonara]

Similarly, if you don't know whether or not a clone has a soul, why call it "not good"?

 

I don't think the official stance of any given religion actually changes anything to do with the clone itself, in any case. Unless there's burning at the stake involved, or elevation to godhood, or something like that.

[ecoli]

Why do you think that a clone wouldn't have a soul?

 

If every living life on earth has a soul than presumably clones would have as well.

 

A clone would still have to be born...go through the gestation period, be born, and perhaps still get a soul.

 

What I don't get, is why people feel the need to have genetic duplicates of themselves running around. I think half of my genes is good enough for any person to have, besides for me.

[-Demosthenes-]

for humans this soul is blown when a fetus is 4 months old

WHA?

[malagen]

forget it,....

i was just messing around

[Kleptin]

No no...why infuse this topic with that garbage? That's pretty ridiculous, humans don't have souls...I find it amusing to see christians fret when they come to an area that walls in a specific idea.

 

Why are religious people jumpy when talk of evolution pops up? They don't view primate ancestors as having souls. And thus, it seems hideously unbelievable that a SOUL (oh my god! it is soooo precious!) would then HAVE to develop from the middle of a mutation????

 

It's the same thing with cloning. Why are religious people frantic about cloning? Because EVERYONE KNOWS that ALL HUMANS BEINGS HAVE A SOUL! thus, when you clone, you are producing souls! and everyone knows that you can't produce souls because the only one who can do that is the nebulous "god" with indistinct powers to create a conceptually muddy "soul". Brings to mind the "ether" that light was said to travel in. Just that ridiculous.

 

Why can't christians be a little more open minded? If the concept of a soul was dropped, suddenly, all science would make sense and no more confusion would ensue...

[flyboy]

when humanity is nearly wiped out by nuclear war or somthin like that then ppl wont think that its bad ethics