So is a baby by that rationale.
Is playing God - 'human cloning' not a dangeroues game?
- Thread starter Busy
- Start date
So is a baby by that rationale.
Thanks, thought maybe you were referring to Syria's occupation.
Don't much care for Israel, either. Victim turned Victimizer.
Last edited:
First off don't take it too seriously.
The suggestion that you don't read books is a reference to, well, too much time in front of the monitor.
Also, religion aside, there have been many Sci-Fi books on the technical, and social pit-falls of cloning. And, well your posts seem oblivous of any potential problems.
And about frontline fodder...?
As far as pure research goes, I have no problem. Clone specific tissue? Great! Organs? Good Idea!
But, whole people, canon fodder, dangerous work? No thanks, no slaves for me.
I'm kinda new to the board thing, is there a problem with my using your name?
And if by 'SonnyJim' you mean me, no, I don't feel foolish for my post. Why should I?
You certanly didn't make any debate points.
I simply made an opinion. You don't like the idea of fodder is fine, but that's no reason to disregard another's opinion with moronic assumptions. It's not a very nice thing to assume another doesn't read books. Perhaps it was you who for some reason took it personally with the frontline fodder. I spend most of my day on the monitor because I work with a computer in front of me. Minimising screen does not mean I'm on this forum all day long. Oh and reading book happens to be one of my alone-time hobby. An apology would be nice but I frankly have no hard feelings towards you sonnyjim. I just hope you restrain yourself before you become resident flamebait. Cheers.
On the subject of using clones for frontline fodder, what is your problem against that? We created them so we can use them how we like no!?... Frontline is important in warfare but has the biggest risk of losing life. There's no such thing as being 100% morally correct in warfare to be honest so why waste life of people when we can use clones? :shrug:
Last edited:
As in most advances in science, it takes a while for the new idea to find it's place in society. I read a comment the other day saying that any drugs that enhance an athelete's ability to perform should be legal. I think that they eventually will be legal. The key to controlling drugs is education starting with parental education from early years, NOT enforcement. South America is right to say that they will not produce the drugs once the market demand becomes small. Until then there is no way to stop it. Many people in this country make their money from this traffic. Some that have made a lot of money can now simply live on what they have made.
The same thing holds true for cloning and genetic modifications. Cloning may eventually lose out to the gebetics for the creation of the "new " person. But it may win insofar as being useful to replace parts of a body that have worn out or become defective. But as in the science of history, now that these sciences are out of the bottle, so to speak, they WILL progress, despite of any barriers to their development. And this is the fact that most of humanity is unwilling to face.
What society should be doing that could be productive is deciding on using the new sciences moraly. I think that making the "perfect man" is never going to be accomplished through genetics. There are just too many environmental factors available to sensory input to make either clones or genetically "made" beings the same whether those sciences enhance physical or mental abilities. Man and mankind will "ALWAYS"' have make choices whether cloned or genetically enhanced. And these choices will shape his individuality.
True, while environments can be shaped by others in conceptual development, once other concepts are learned and explored an individual may change even if surrounded and shaped by societal forces which try to mold conformity to certain moralies. The ability to reason, once created as it was, cannot rule out conformity and must realize the possibilities of change.
Well, long post-I guess this expresses my opinion on this whole thing however. DJA
The same thing holds true for cloning and genetic modifications. Cloning may eventually lose out to the gebetics for the creation of the "new " person. But it may win insofar as being useful to replace parts of a body that have worn out or become defective. But as in the science of history, now that these sciences are out of the bottle, so to speak, they WILL progress, despite of any barriers to their development. And this is the fact that most of humanity is unwilling to face.
What society should be doing that could be productive is deciding on using the new sciences moraly. I think that making the "perfect man" is never going to be accomplished through genetics. There are just too many environmental factors available to sensory input to make either clones or genetically "made" beings the same whether those sciences enhance physical or mental abilities. Man and mankind will "ALWAYS"' have make choices whether cloned or genetically enhanced. And these choices will shape his individuality.
True, while environments can be shaped by others in conceptual development, once other concepts are learned and explored an individual may change even if surrounded and shaped by societal forces which try to mold conformity to certain moralies. The ability to reason, once created as it was, cannot rule out conformity and must realize the possibilities of change.
Well, long post-I guess this expresses my opinion on this whole thing however. DJA
And so is a clone.
Norsefire & at least one other posting to this thread still has no clue as to the nature of a clone.
A clone of a human being is essentially a human being. It is a living creture with intelligence, ambitions, emotions, consciousness, a knowledge of its own mortality, et cetera.
It should have the same rights as any other human being. It is unethical to consider it a tool or cannon fodder to be used at the whim of another human.
A clone of a human being is essentially a human being. It is a living creture with intelligence, ambitions, emotions, consciousness, a knowledge of its own mortality, et cetera.
It should have the same rights as any other human being. It is unethical to consider it a tool or cannon fodder to be used at the whim of another human.
Let's say there are two people in a room with you. One of them is a clone of me, and one of them is Oli himself. You have never seen either of us before.
What distinguishing features would the clone have? (ie, how would you find which one the clone was?)
It cloned itself.
Not true.
(Unless the law declares it so, but that would be a mere legal fiction).
Nope, you still have no idea what a clone is.
First, I thought I had posted a partial response, guess not, My bad. I can see I'm gonna have trouble with tone and intent. 'Cuz don't wanna be 'flamebait', whatever that is. Don't sound good though.
About my remark about your reading... It was sarcasm. You know, a bitting joke. Would
have helped? I don't doubt that you read. You say 'a lot' I don't doubt that either.
It's just that the subject of clones and their struggle for freedom is the subject of many a story.
And as to an apology...I won't apologize for being a smart-ass. I pratice in front of a mirror... I will acknowlage that I am somewhat new to boards and have yet to master its subtlese. I get tired of emoticons. Guess I gotta build a bridge on that one.
As to the fodder issue; I think we'd be well served to use tech. to resolve war, not how to fight more. And no I don't think war is an inherent trait of humans. On the genetic level that is. At this point in the cultural evolution, it has become a habit, or an addiction. A highly destructive addiction. But if we don't kick that jones, we won't make it as a specie.
And, life is life. Regardless of its gestational (is that a word?)beginings. Sending clones to die is no better than sending, oh say your identical twin, if you had one.
Frankly, I think they will resent it real soon, if'n it ever comes about.
Much of what I say is framed 'tongue in cheek', sometimes even when I quite serious.