I'm ok, You're a CLONE!
- Thread starter Mr. Hamtastic
- Start date
Somewhere in the Archives here is a similar thread, I'll point out the same points again.
Firstly most complaints about cloning are generated by people that imagine a scientist taking a genetic sample of an original human being and then plopping a baby out of thin air. This thought usually then gives way to all the ridiculous notions about the ethical dilemma's like stealing organs from the clone or whether they have rights etc.
The problem is however that these people tend to neglect that most cloning programs are not developing entire human beings, in fact far from it. The cloning they attempt did require human egg's (Embryo's) but it wasn't to create a full fledged child, just to generate the process of cellular division from the genetic sample.
The argument's usually against this in regards to morality issues is the pro-lifer lobbiest's that suggest such tampering with Embryo's to develop cellular subdivision equals a sentient life. What they tend not to take into consideration is the Embryo's themselves have been formulated from eggs that have been voluntarily harvested from women, these egg's themselves would likely of found themselves disposed through the women's periods should they not have been volunteered.
This means that the egg's would never have naturally become a child and once removed from the woman they can not naturally harbour a life. So their fears and complaints in reality lack education on their part and their fear mongering actually makes little sense.
The posed method for creating new organs, limbs or replacement components like ears/noses etc is the cells are cultured to grow in moulds, therefore there is no human clone with a brain or sentiency ever being stripped of their rights. All it is, is just a cluster of cells formulating the component.
It's still of course in it's infancy and of course has all the usual "yokel" fears that go with it.
Firstly most complaints about cloning are generated by people that imagine a scientist taking a genetic sample of an original human being and then plopping a baby out of thin air. This thought usually then gives way to all the ridiculous notions about the ethical dilemma's like stealing organs from the clone or whether they have rights etc.
The problem is however that these people tend to neglect that most cloning programs are not developing entire human beings, in fact far from it. The cloning they attempt did require human egg's (Embryo's) but it wasn't to create a full fledged child, just to generate the process of cellular division from the genetic sample.
The argument's usually against this in regards to morality issues is the pro-lifer lobbiest's that suggest such tampering with Embryo's to develop cellular subdivision equals a sentient life. What they tend not to take into consideration is the Embryo's themselves have been formulated from eggs that have been voluntarily harvested from women, these egg's themselves would likely of found themselves disposed through the women's periods should they not have been volunteered.
This means that the egg's would never have naturally become a child and once removed from the woman they can not naturally harbour a life. So their fears and complaints in reality lack education on their part and their fear mongering actually makes little sense.
The posed method for creating new organs, limbs or replacement components like ears/noses etc is the cells are cultured to grow in moulds, therefore there is no human clone with a brain or sentiency ever being stripped of their rights. All it is, is just a cluster of cells formulating the component.
It's still of course in it's infancy and of course has all the usual "yokel" fears that go with it.
Not fully functioning, although that would be an option. Full clone, with advanced aging technology, clone never forms a brain. Just think, you have cancer? never fear! We have this 18 year old body looking for a brain like yours. And it's perfect, with some special modifications.
Right, Brain transplant or thought recording, either one should work I'd think.
Brain transplant from a dead person to a clone?
1111
1111
Yes. You know that residual electrical impulses continue for up to a half-hour post mortem, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death
a fun thought-I wonder when the vision of beheaded people actually ceases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death
a fun thought-I wonder when the vision of beheaded people actually ceases.
Live person to clone, would of course be preferable. Some damage would occur to the brain if it lost blood supply, that would be something to be avoided.
Heh reminds me of arguments with my friends, if an killed autoduellist could still get a memory transfer, as long as the head was intact and not badly damaged...
I think it was $10000 to clone a body $1000/mth storage and $5000 for a memory transfer(or download). 2035 prices.
Steve Jackson Predicts the future again.
I have seen the future brother...It is MURDER
I think it was $10000 to clone a body $1000/mth storage and $5000 for a memory transfer(or download). 2035 prices.
Steve Jackson Predicts the future again.
I have seen the future brother...It is MURDER
Repent!
Well for one thing they make it insanely difficult to adopt in the US. YMMV depending on where you live.
My sister and her husband ended up going to Russia to adopt their son, but that's recently closed down.
Some people and traditions have strong feelings about blood relations. It wouldn't be directly your child, but it would be a blood relative and directly your wife's child. I was just mentioning it as a point of ref.
Dearest Sir,
Trying to weeeeeasel out on basis of your rationality, eh? Well, you, Sir, are wrong! WRONG!
I bid you Good Day, Sir!
The Right Honourable
GeoffP
I am sorry, kind sir.
I will aim to desist such behavior and make it my highest priority to be more irrational like you.
Now, now, don't get mad.
Anyway, the latest round of gene therapy for heart disease seems to be working out (or so my inbox tells me), so what's the harm? I appreciate your choices - don't get me wrong - but mutation is already hard at work on us, damaging what ought not be damaged. We're not selecting against mutations any more - rampaging lions being in regrettably shorter supply these days - so can we be far wrong, laying our transcriptases alongside the DNA template of the enemy?
Best,
Geoff
Anyway, the latest round of gene therapy for heart disease seems to be working out (or so my inbox tells me), so what's the harm? I appreciate your choices - don't get me wrong - but mutation is already hard at work on us, damaging what ought not be damaged. We're not selecting against mutations any more - rampaging lions being in regrettably shorter supply these days - so can we be far wrong, laying our transcriptases alongside the DNA template of the enemy?
Best,
Geoff
Perish the thought.
Even if I were the type to get mad, I couldn't get mad at you - most times, anyway.
I think I already pointed that out.
We simply do not have the foresight, wisdom and omnipotence to know what the results of our actions will be.
More often than not, when man fucks with nature, not only does nature win, she hits back with a vengance.
I think it all comes down to a silly, egotistical fear of death.
What's so damned scary and bad about death?
Let it come when it comes.
I say let Darwin do his work.
And what makes you say it ought not be damaged?
What happens when there an unsustainable number herbivores in an area?
1.) They migrate.
2.) Their reproduction rates drop to a sustainable level.
3.) Some die of starvation/pestilence/agression and the remainder can survive.
4.) They eat their way into extinction, and only then does the ecosystem revive.
What would animals with knowledge of their own mortality and fear of death do? They'd settle and take up agriculture and civilization.
They destroy the natural habitat through attempting to control it, and eventually pur cement over it all and import Kentucky Bluegrass and put ficus trees in their living rooms.
We are all going to die, why take everything else along with us?
No, I am not a nomad, but that is near impossible in this modern world.
My ideal? North American Indians prior to the Spanish invasion.
I'm not certain we are better off now than we were then - even taking into consideration all our medical "advances".
Most of our worst ailments are self-induced through our modern lifestyle and inventions, anyway.
We should be as ghosts in this world and leave the smallest footprint possible.
Exactly, we are not.
That's my point.
Remember, as one gets older, the view of death changes ...becomes more acceptable. Youth seems to have a built-in self-preservation factor that's extremely strong. That grows weaker as time goes on.
While I don't disagree, be careful that you don't over-romanticize the nomadic life of the Native Americans. It was a damned hard life, fraught with danger, and death was always damned close by. A simple wound, an accident, could become infected and one often died a painful death.
Baron Max
Once you're past the window where you can pass on your genes, what good are you? Evolution is done with you, go die if you want.
Here's a question for everyone: Suppose I want to make a clone of myself so that I can harvest one of his kidneys for transplant. To make things work, imagine that we have the technology to quickly grow the clone into an adult. The clone gets no say in the matter; I clone him, take his kidney, and then set him free to do whatever he wants.
Is this moral? I suspect that most people would say no, it's not moral to clone someone just so you can take a kidney because it violates the rights of the clone. But remember, if I can't take the kidney I won't have any interest in making the clone and it will never even exist. So if we could ask our hypothetical clone about his opinion on the matter, he would surely say "Yes, do it! I want to exist!" Given that, would it really be immoral?
Is this moral? I suspect that most people would say no, it's not moral to clone someone just so you can take a kidney because it violates the rights of the clone. But remember, if I can't take the kidney I won't have any interest in making the clone and it will never even exist. So if we could ask our hypothetical clone about his opinion on the matter, he would surely say "Yes, do it! I want to exist!" Given that, would it really be immoral?