ista_acoustic Posted January 21, 2003 Posted January 21, 2003 i need the oppinion on this subject. if you had the chance to be cloned, would you take it or let it slip?
Glider Posted January 21, 2003 Posted January 21, 2003 As in a whole being? No. What purpose would it serve. There are 6 billion people on the planet, of what possible benefit would another one of me be? Moreover, the clone would only look like me. It wouldn't be me, it would be a completely different person and an individual in his own right. As in a spare kidney or pancreas? Yes. I think cloning one's own stem cells for organs is possibly the only, and certainly the best way of overcoming problems associated with rejection. Moreover, it would put a halt to the disturbing increase in the organs black market.
fafalone Posted January 21, 2003 Posted January 21, 2003 who wouldn't want more of me walking the earth? sure ;x
Skye Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 If I were only thinking of the women of the world then I guess I would have to say yes. But isn't one of the clones always evil, and hell-bent on killing the other?
fafalone Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 Clones aren't even the same. Look at the cloned cat. Different personality, different pattern on its fur.
blike Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 who wouldn't want more of me walking the earth? sure ;x ROFL. Why clone when I've got a built in tool that will allow me to pass on my genes, oh...and have fun while doing it
fafalone Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 Yeah but your genes might be mixed with a undesirable if you marry for love rather than intellect. :jk:
Zeo Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 In a sense, all cloning is is making a copy of someone's genetic makeup...you're not necesarily copying their being...but if there were a way to imprint your synaptic responses, and algorhythms, and what not, then I would do it...after all, If I'm going to rule the world, I'm going to need a way to live forever....
Giles Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 That raelian idea of copying the brain across is (a) nonsensical and (b) would be murder anyway. I wouldn't mind being cloned; it'd be quite interesting to get some idea of what was genetic and what wasn't (although it would hardly count as a controlled experiment).
Knigh4321 Posted January 26, 2003 Posted January 26, 2003 I would allow myself to be cloned. Then I would raise myself to be at my full potential, knowing my limits and my tallents I could expand and capitalize on what I've learned about myself already and make a better me.
fafalone Posted January 26, 2003 Posted January 26, 2003 I take it spelling isn't one of your talents
Matzi Posted January 26, 2003 Posted January 26, 2003 Originally posted by Knigh4321 I would allow myself to be cloned. Then I would raise myself to be at my full potential, knowing my limits and my tallents I could expand and capitalize on what I've learned about myself already and make a better me. That's what you would do. What about your clone? How do you know that he wants to make your life better? Think about socialization...
Glider Posted January 26, 2003 Posted January 26, 2003 Originally posted by Matzi That's what you would do. What about your clone? How do you know that he wants to make your life better? Think about socialization... Well said! This is my point about cloning, it involves making decisions on the behalf of other people. I don't like this being done to me. I have no reason to suppose anyone else would like me doing it to them.
Skye Posted January 26, 2003 Posted January 26, 2003 Having a child is much the same, and no one likes their parents telling them what to do. I imagine my clone would get into their teens and rebel hideously: grow a mullet, develop an appreciation for country music, wear sandals and socks, and set their sights on becoming the curling world champ:eek: But how do the decisions you make for your clone differ from your child?
Matzi Posted January 26, 2003 Posted January 26, 2003 I totally agree with both of you. A clone is not different from a child you (or someone else) have to rise and that can be influenced greatly by every single event.
Glider Posted January 27, 2003 Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by Skye But how do the decisions you make for your clone differ from your child? Because you could help but be affected by the knowledge that this individual was (in effect) you (at least on a genetic level), and the fact that your clone would look exactly like you. This would influence your attitudes towards it and expectations of it. At least children have the advantage of being pecieved as different and individual. Even then, in many cases the parents still attempt to live vicariously through them.
Skye Posted January 28, 2003 Posted January 28, 2003 I think that a parent would love their clone as much as a sexually produced child. There maybe some differences in the way the parent treats the child and also the child would only have one parent which might be a disadvantage. The main concern for the cloned child in terms of the way it is treated would be with the outside world. I just don't see potentially good parents treating a clone worse. A clone would have quite a few differences in appearance. Things like posture, musculature, fat%, voice and hair would probably differ. I'm really just playing the Devil's advocate, I wouldn't have a clone because I'd rather my child be genetically individual, theres the imperfections in the cloning process and the delights in the sexual process, including sharing parenting with someone you love.
Glider Posted January 28, 2003 Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by Skye A clone would have quite a few differences in appearance. Things like posture, musculature, fat%, voice and hair would probably differ. not to any significant degree, the clone would have the identical 'programming' for the skeletal and muscular structures, and possible percentage body fat too. They would have the identical genes determining the size and structure of their larynx and the same hair (unless they changed it). Basically, they would develop according to the identical 'blueprint' of the original cell donor. Their personality would differ though; they would be an individual. That might exert some influence on body shape/size later in life for sure. I'm really just playing the Devil's advocate, I wouldn't have a clone because I'd rather my child be genetically individual, theres the imperfections in the cloning process and the delights in the sexual process, including sharing parenting with someone you love. ...and raising a true and unique individual?
JaKiri Posted January 28, 2003 Posted January 28, 2003 Bear in mind that DNA doesn't actually contain all the information to give an identical you, including things like voice. Identical twins have nonidentical voices, for instance.
Glider Posted January 28, 2003 Posted January 28, 2003 That's true. I was referring only to the 'cellular blueprint' as it were. Identical DNA may result in an identical organism on the cellular lever, which would imply that (for example) structures associated with voice production would also be identical. However, voice modulation, cadence, mode and register of speech and accent are all socially acquired.
Skye Posted January 28, 2003 Posted January 28, 2003 Identical twins don't get their name for nothing. This might be aided by the parents insanely common habit of dressing them the same but still they do look very similar. Looking the same as my theorectical identical brother would be a pain, I would get stared at in public, people might mistake us. Looking like my identical father would not have this problem assuming he were a generation older. I wouldn't think the similarities between a clone and it's parent would be particularly noticeable. Maybe compare photos of identical twins that have 20+ year age differences. Don't have any on me at the moment though sorry. From my point of view the problem isn't so much individuality so much as the deliberateness of creating this child. If somehow a child was born as a clone of it's parent (not even going to try to figure out how) then it would maybe considered a oddity but not at a disadvantage. The deliberate nature of cloning yourself has the danger of people trying to live their life over and reach their 'full potential', people who don't want to create themselves. They want to create a super-me, which most people here agree is wrong.
Knigh4321 Posted January 29, 2003 Posted January 29, 2003 I disagree, I don't think that we should limit ourselves by our morality. If we can create life by other means than how nature started it why shouldn't we?
PogoC7 Posted January 29, 2003 Posted January 29, 2003 If the human race was being wiped out by a totally destructive virus and I had a chance to clone myself I would. I would clone myself, but add genatic feature which are immune to the virus (if by then, tech. allowed). The whole human race would. Ot would be their duty. Plus, if we were to colonize other planets cloning would be a must. In the travel and once on the planet. I have a question though. If we were to Clone ourselfs, but on a different Planet. Could we evolve faster. By genetics or just by cloning at fast rates.
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2003 Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by Knigh4321 I disagree, I don't think that we should limit ourselves by our morality. If we can create life by other means than how nature started it why shouldn't we? Because we don't know and can't predict what effects it would have on the surrounding ecology. Having said that, physicists involved in the first nuclear weapon tests warned there was a good chance the atmosphere would be igntited by the explosions. So you never know what craziness we might do next.
Glider Posted January 29, 2003 Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Having said that, physicists involved in the first nuclear weapon tests warned there was a good chance the atmosphere would be igntited by the explosions. So you never know what craziness we might do next. Yeah...so we don't appear to have been too limited by our morality as it is, do we? More than that though, ethics exists for a reason. If we choose not to be limited by ethical considerations, then...well, to hell with us I suppose. I wouldn't want to live in that world.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now