I'm ok, You're a CLONE!

swarm said:
Twins are actual clones of each other. Artificial cloning would be like twins except with years or decades difference in ages.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, that's a fairly accurate description of cloning.

However, as I also understand, science is now working on numerous DNA research projects that have identified various factors that make one susceptible to various diseases like cancer, sickle-cell, etc. If that research makes it possible to eliminate those diseases from the clone, wouldn't we want that option? Of course we would!

And therein lies one of the major issues with cloning. So, in effect, the laboratory would "creating" not an exact clone, but ...well, tweaked clone. And thus, we're stepping closer and closer to ...what... Frankenstein's monster, perhaps?

Baron Max
 
Oddly enough, the future roadblock to cloning is different corporations "own"(yes OWN can you fucking believe that??), different parts of the human gnome. Thus to clone now, might be a fate worse than breaking the law in any country, you could be sued by all the multinational corporations. That is a fate worse than death...

"Creating" something non-human however is perfectly patentable. MUHAHAHAHAHAH
 
Baron Max said:
You'd willingly clone another human with the same high potential for certain diseases that we could easily eliminate in the cloning process?

Why? I don't think that would make sense to anyone, would it?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of fucking with genes in general.
Nor am I a fan of cloning human beings at all.

I prefer to let nature take it's course, because when we try to "fix" it, it almost inevitably ends up worse.

There is a chance I am sterile.
I told my wife (who definitely wants a kid) before we got married that if I am sterile, I refuse to go to any "fertility specialist" and we will simply have to accpet it, and adopt.
 
What about gene replacement and therapy? Simple enough, really.
 
GeoffP said:
What about gene replacement and therapy? Simple enough, really.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a good idea.
I wouldn't necesarily vote to ban it, however, as this is just my own personal ideals.

I would also refuse chemotherapy, if I had cancer.
I had this talk with my wife as well.
If I get cancer, unless it can be simply cut off, that just means I will die of cancer.
I'll smoke lots of weed to deal with the pain.
That doesn't mean I want to ban chemotherapy.

I think our fear of death has led us down a drastically wrong path.
 
swarm said:
Or you could have some one step in for you. Traditionally a brother is the first choice but in this day and age a good friend might work better.
Click to expand...

Why? :bugeye:
It still wouldn't be my kid any more than an adopted kid would be.
Why would I bring another child in the world rather than help one that is already here and needs someone to take care of him or her?

I never understood that. :shrug:
 
one_raven said:
I am not a fan of fucking with genes in general.
Nor am I a fan of cloning human beings at all.

I prefer to let nature take it's course, because when we try to "fix" it, it almost inevitably ends up worse.

There is a chance I am sterile.
I told my wife (who definitely wants a kid) before we got married that if I am sterile, I refuse to go to any "fertility specialist" and we will simply have to accpet it, and adopt.
Click to expand...

What if it is "natural" to "clone" at our stage of life?

The stage where everyone(or close enough) is entitled to healthcare while free to pass shitty genes onto a new generation, while gaining knowledge of enabling these shitty gene'd people to be able to survive to maturity and pass on even more degenerate genes? That's ain't natural either. Knowledge does not go backwards, unless forced.

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...

"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.
'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
Nietzsche's Thus spoke Zarathustra, p.3,4,5, Walter Kaufmann transl.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
nietzschefan said:
What if it is "natural" to "clone" at our stage of life?
Click to expand...
I think you know what I meant.

nietzschefan said:
The stage where everyone(or close enough) is entitled to healthcare while free to pass shitty genes onto a new generation, while gaining knowledge of enabling these shitty gene'd people to be able to survive to maturity and pass on even more degenerate genes? That's ain't natural either. Knowledge does not go backwards, unless forced.
Click to expand...
Allowing for gene manipulation will not stop passing "shitty genes" on at all.
In fact, it is quite the opposite.
The more adept the medical profession gets at "curing" diseases or allowing people who would have otherwise been culled to live longer, the more "shitty genes" will be passed on.

Death is natural.
Fear is a lot more debilitating and dangerous than any disease.
 
one_raven said:
I don't think it's a good idea.
I wouldn't necesarily vote to ban it, however, as this is just my own personal ideals.

I would also refuse chemotherapy, if I had cancer.
I had this talk with my wife as well.
If I get cancer, unless it can be simply cut off, that just means I will die of cancer.
I'll smoke lots of weed to deal with the pain.
That doesn't mean I want to ban chemotherapy.

I think our fear of death has led us down a drastically wrong path.
Click to expand...

Why should gene replacement therapy be limited to cancer? Why not blindness, hearing loss, and so forth? There's a range of people who would disagree or agree with it. Is your disagreement based on its "unnaturalness"? Where does this unnaturalness come from?
 
one_raven said:
I think our fear of death has led us down a drastically wrong path.
Click to expand...

I must say that I wholeheartedly agree. And I most enthusiastically agree with the "drastically wrong path". I think that's caused a tremendous amount of problems in the world, and not just in the healthcare field.

Baron Max
 
GeoffP said:
Why should gene replacement therapy be limited to cancer?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't.
I'm not saying it should be limited at all, just that it is not for me.
As I said, i am not interested in limiting for anyone else.

GeoffP said:
Why not blindness, hearing loss, and so forth?
Click to expand...
Furthermore, I made no distinction about cancer.
I am saying that I would not opt for gene therapy, regardless of the problem.

GeoffP said:
There's a range of people who would disagree or agree with it.
Click to expand...
Of course they would, and they should.

GeoffP said:
Is your disagreement based on its "unnaturalness"? Where does this unnaturalness come from?
Click to expand...
Based on my ideal that we should manipulate nature, the environment, ecosystems and the naturalistic course as little as possible.
We do not have, and will never have, enough wisodm and foresight to manage it properly.
For every action there are vast consequences - some we see immediately, some which make themselves apparent much later, some we may never recognize - and we simply do not have the power to control karma, as much as we wish or think we do.

I think humankind reached its pinnacle before the Industrial Revolution, perhaps even before Civilization (city building) sometime in the midst of the Agrarian Age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top