• Clips4Sale is having a Black Friday Sale On All Clips -
    Unlock UP TO 20% OFF ON YOUR PURCHASES

  • If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Cloning....

qjakal

1st Level Indigo Feather
Joined
Apr 17, 2001
Messages
6,060
Points
0
http://www.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=216489


Is there going to be resistance to it? Why? Don't the benefits far outweigh any problems? Religous issues? Can we "just" clone body organs without stirring the pot too much? Would you want your "identity" to be able to be transferred to an 18 year old clone if it was feasible? Aren't there about a thousand questions on thsi topic that could be discussed? Thought so...:wow: Q
 
http://www.flakmag.com/opinion/clone.html

clone


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/graphics/entertainment/clone.htm
 
Q & A

The article raises more questions without giving much input...the "technical" aspects of the process will be solved within a few years, but the moral and ethical implications won't... however, this is another area that will progress despite attempts to regulate it, due to the massive profit and emotional potential inherent in the concept. I worry that our country will try to restrain research on this topic, causing it to go underground and driving the profit part to extreme heights. We have a habit of trying to (unsuccessfully) stuff the genie back into its bottle... :scared: Q
 
Moral and ethical...I know what you mean. People are too uptight. There will absolutely be debate surrounding cloning. In fact, there already is. Many call it "playing god". (For the record, I don't believe in god, nor do I not believe in god. I acknowledge the possibility, and that is all.) For those who do believe and argue that we are playing god, do you really intend to restrict the responsibilities credited to the almighty to simply creating life? Sounds like it. If there is a god, and if he is what most religions claim he is, he cannot be accurately emulated by simply spawning a duplicate of a living thing. Are we interfering with nature? Maybe. But we're human beings. We've been interfering with nature since we developed civilization.
 
Destiny?

The "god doesn't want us to do it" argument is thin, imo. If we have the ability to create such a process, couldn't you argue equally well that God MUST have ordained it to be our "destiny" to have such a boon available to us? Of course, if you apply that theory to nuclear weapons, it gets a bit dicey... Q
 
I say lets push the limits of cloning and see where it gets us...............I mean the world is already screwed up so whats the harm :devil:
 
The "harm"

..would be to face a situation such as China is currently experiencing...insufficient resources for your population to survive and grow either economically or technologically to compensate for the lack of those resources. Pretty damn harmful, actually... Q
 
Re: Destiny?

qjakal said:
The "god doesn't want us to do it" argument is thin, imo. If we have the ability to create such a process, couldn't you argue equally well that God MUST have ordained it to be our "destiny" to have such a boon available to us? Of course, if you apply that theory to nuclear weapons, it gets a bit dicey... Q

It may be that God doesn't want us to do it but is a gentleman and will not force us to do what he wants. He gives us free choice, even if our choices are stupid.

BTW - the Bible never mentions cloning so I guess God never condemned it.

IMO - I wouldn't be so cruel as to make another person who is just like me ie. bald, fat, lazy.
 
Re: The "harm"

I must agree with qjakal. Though the world is almost certainly doomed and any attempt to rectify its situation would be futile, we would accelerate its demise by becoming irresponsible with cloning. (Or any other technology, for that matter.) Overcrowding is definately an issue.
 
the harm

the problems they are having in china could be solved by adopting our form of government. their problem is communism, not over population.

i am totally in favor of cloning, and i'm a right wing republican! pres. bush is wrong. the religious argument is wrong! the playing god line then applies to all the scientists who ever came up with an anti biotic, or imunization!

just ask the parents of those 3 us soldiers that died in afganistan 2 days ago if they'd want cloning of their boys! ask the parents of a child dieing of cancer if they'd like their child cloned. ask the 4 children whose father was killed in a car accident on his way home from work.

i say do it, and do it fast!
steve
 
I think it's an important new field of technology. However, I say we keep it low, cloning organs and such. We wouldn't want women finding out they don't need us now do we? But seriously, death is a part of life that everyone must except. More people are born than die. People may want their dearly departed cloned, but however painful they will just have to except they are gone. I do think we should clone Einstein and let him go at it with today's technology though, his brain was much larger than the average human's, keep him away from war movies though. I've lost a few people who were very dear to me, and I would like to see them again, but if we cloned everyone who died young, we'd have a big problem on our hands pretty quick. I also don't believe someone should be able to have someone cloned because they have money and others don't. I say we leave it in nature's hands a little while longer, if some god does control that, we'll just have to trust their judgement.
 
accept death?

since when? i'll take your view point, and carry it to the next lower level. don't take anti-biotics, so what, you'll just die, face it, thats a fact of life.
doesn't sound all that good does it? like the two examples i gave, a child dieing of cancer, or the father of 4 kids dieing in a car accident. both of those are cases of premature death. i'd give anything to have cloning in either of those cases.
steve
 
In fact, I don't use anti-biotics, nor do I use pain killers. But that's not my point, I'm saying death is population control, as horrible as it sounds it's true. Everything applies, infants dying, wars, sickness, natural disasters. It's sad, but it's life. The planet is well on it's way to over population, look at Africa, it's over populated and struck with poverty. Hell, look at larger cities in the U.S. Not everyone has the chance to post on the internet, people live in poverty because there is not enough for everyone, there may be enough, but do you really think everyone is going to give a little to help out with over population? They don't right now. Is it fair to say, "Your baby will be cloned, Mrs. Platinum, but yours will be buried, Mrs. Iron, you don't have enough money, therefor your child is worth less."? No, it's not. When I was 13 I lost my best friend, he wandered into the wrong territory and was shot by a 15 year old kid. When I was 15, I lost my girlfriend in a car crash. When I was 16, I lost an uncle and my grandfather. I don't think that's fair, but I had no say in it. If they were to be cloned, along with millions who die young, their children would witness poverty at it's worst. There's is simply not enough resources in the world for everyone who has ever lived. There are almost as many people above ground as there are below, we are growing very quickly without cloning. If I were to die, I would not want to be cloned. Bring the universe on, I'm prepared for any truth, even if it means the cease of my existence.
 
I'm not trying to force anyone to believe in God or a soul here, so please don't turn this into a religion debate after hearing this. But let's assume for the sake of argument that you DO have a soul. Then let's suppose you die. Then someone clones you. Is your soul yanked back to your body? I doubt it. And if not, then is the new creation actually a true copy of the original. Yes, we can create bodies, maybe even working ones, but can you honestly say that we will be breathing life itself into them?

The arguement of someone who wants their son the soldier to come back: Are you doing this for the son who may very well be happy in Paradise (or whatever you believe), or are you doing this for the ones who are grieving? If so, isn't that a tad selfish? It's like funerals. You don't have them for the deceased, you have them for the living so that they can grieve, honor or whatever.

5 years ago, I lost my son in a horror show of medical ineptitude. He was a healthy child with no birth defects who only died because two doctors royally fucked up. I know all about that kind of pain. I lived in a bottle for two months, lost 35 pounds and came within seconds of both shooting both doctors and then myself. Why do I bring this up? Because I can honestly tell you that I have a very good perspective on losing a son. Now, with the technology soon to be available, would I want him back? Would I want to be able to live all of the things I was denied?

No.

It wouldn't be my son. It would be a Xerox of his body. My real son will live forever in my memories and in my heart. He will never age and he will never die. It would be irresponsible of me to dishonor his memory by creating what would in effect be a toy.

The argument has been raised by several that we've screwed up enough, so what's one more thing? Well, we've unleashed nuclear weapons on our fellow Man, so I suppose we could do that again. We've utterly destroyed our environment, so we might as well keep plugging along down that road. After all, what do our kids need with air, water and a survivable temperature...we have it now, and we'll be dead by then, screw 'em. we've slaughtered people in the name of God and race, so we may as well give that a whirl again. Why not? It's not like we have any responsibility to do the right thing after we screw up, correct?

I can't say enough against the prospect of human cloning. I may be a bit in the grey area morally when it comes to stem-cell research and organ creation...if done right, these techniques could save lives. But the actual cloning of full "human beings" (and I use the term very loosely)...well...

...I guess we'll find out, won't we? But even if it goes horribly wrong, what does it matter? We can alway just kill them like we do everything else, right?
 
Okay but here's the thing. To those of you who speak of the problems cloning will create, regarding overpopulation, you are assuming cloning would be used recklessly. And for all we know, it might. That is why we must be very cautious. All power comes with responsibility. Say we were to clone organs. It would save lives.

Pertaining to the soul, my beliefs are oriented more toward science than religion. Now, this is just my opinion, a theory, really: I think the soul is a form of energy that defines one's personality and consciousness. It is present in the sperm and egg that create new life. It is therefore present before birth and undergoes alterations, probably of a chemical nature, during the first few years of life, that result in the development of personality. The causes of the alterations continue throughout life, but because the soul has already taken on a definite form, the impact is far less noticeable. Upon death, the matter that is our physical body deteriorates slowly, but energy cannot decompose like that, so it remains. And then what? I dunno.

Therefore, I conjecture that the soul might be cloned, as well. It depends. I need to know, or have some evidence about the following to attempt a theory on this:
Does the brain have a role in retaining the soul's definition?
Would the cloned brain generate new energy in the correct form?
Perhaps if we were to perform curlean photography (I dunno if I spelled that right, but it creates an image of the aura surrounding a living being) on whatever animals we've managed to clone so far, more questions would be answered.
 
Regardless of the nature of the soul, a clone will always be a completely different person because he will not have the memories and experiences of the original donor. For this reason, they will never replace a lost loved one.

Also, If the person you wished to clone died at age forty, the only way you get them cloned is as an infant. You'll have to wait forty years before they look like the original; Sci-Fi notwithstanding, there's no way to get a fully grown adult out of the test tubes. Further, while I don't completely understand the details, genes contain structures called telomeres which degrade as the organism ages. When you copy DNA, you copy the telomeres in their current condition. As the team that cloned Dolly the sheep discovered, when you clone a three-year-old animal, you get an infant animal with three years of wear on its telomeres. Whatever age the organism is when you take the sample, that's how many years you've effectively shaved off the clone's possible lifespan.

With that in mind, I think it's doubtful that we'll use cloning as a means of reproduction on any large scale. I think it has far more practical applications combined with stem cell technology (Another discussion for another day) to produce rejection-proof organs for transplant.
 
And then there was the guy who had always wanted to be a twin, so he had himself cloned. Unfortunately, the clone's personality could only be described as obnoxious. Furthermore, he had a foul mouth. Finally, our guy could stand it no longer and pushed the clone off a bridge, killing him.

He was sent to prison for making an obscene clone fall.

Strelnikov
 
Very funny, Strel! That was cute.

Sorry if I came across as harsh in my response, guys...but this is something I feel very strongly against. There is simply NO WAY you can have this without having a moral or religious debate. It's the same with abortion, and we've been debating that for decades with no real progress on a true answer.

The sad point is, it's going to be done anyway and we all know it. Even if we don't know about...it will be done. I just want to go on record before hand, so that I don't have to say "I told you so" later.

Stem cell research I can see under the right conditions. I try to live my life in an even balance of science and faith, two things that do not have to be exclusive of each other.

But cloning is just wrong. Can't anybody see that just because we CAN do something, it doesn't mean that we SHOULD? You give someone firecrackers to play with on the 4th of July, and it doesn't mean that they should throw them at the dog just because they have them and they can.
 
I understand what you're saying, but "should" is derived from "right" and "wrong", which are obscure concepts that none of us can truly define. Still, you have every right to your opinion, as we all do.

Also, how can we be sure the memories would not be the same? Is it not possible that the part of the brain which contained memories would be cloned accurately and have the same structure and composition, preserving the memories?
 
dave, i don't think i have your courage. i would have killed those 2 bastards, and, maybe myself, maybe not, as i'd want the world to know why i did it!
your choosing to go on is touching. i got tears in my eyes reading what you wrote. i have 4 of my own, so yes i understand.

but i disagree on the clonning point. i don't think you understand clonning. it would have been your son, it's his "tissue" grown out to a full size form. from what i've read, the experiments they've done so far show the clons have the same personality as the "original".
i believe in reincarnation, so maybe the spirit will come back to the clone.
i'll repeate, if the world is so over crowded, then stop the use of anti-biotics, and aids resarch!
steve
 
from what i've read, the experiments they've done so far show the clons have the same personality as the "original".

Yeah, but it's a sheep. How much variation in personality is there between individual sheep? There's a reason we use the term "Sheep" to describe an unthinking conformist. I haven't heard of successful cloning experiments involving anything more advanced than such barnyard quadrupeds. Unless you've got info about a project involving apes or actual human subjects that I haven't heard about, I wouldn't take similarity of personality among herd animals as a significant sign of replicating the soul.

Also, how can we be sure the memories would not be the same? Is it not possible that the part of the brain which contained memories would be cloned accurately and have the same structure and composition, preserving the memories?

I admit I may be grossly oversimplifying matters, but I am given to understand that what little we know of the process of memory indicates that memories are recorded in the brain as it grows new synaptic pathways. That makes the structures which contain memories acquired characteristics rather than inheirent and thusly inheiritable ones. If you lost an arm in a car accident, your clone would not be born one-armed. They're significant changes to the organism, to be sure, but they don't rewrite the genome. I don't think it's possible for a clone to duplicate the exact memories of the original, any more than it could be created duplicating the exact tattoos and scars of the original.

With these limitations in mind, I don't really advocate cloning for anything other than breeding better livestock, repopulating endangered species (Only 100 pandas left in the wild? We'll double that number in weeks.) or growing replacement livers & kidneys to order. I'm with Dave on this one.

On a side note about the "Let's do it just because we can" mentality, though, this thread brings to mind one of my favorite comics, Warren Ellis's darkly funny satire Transmetropolitan from DC's Vertigo line. In the excess-drenched future depicted, a fast food chain called Long Pig serves meat from anacephalic (Just enough brain to keep life support running without consciousness) human clones. "Oh my god, this stuff is people!" "At these prices, it had better be.":evilha:
 
Areenactor, if you think we should stop giving people anti-biotics, that's a different subject. A different subject in my mind, don't get me wrong, I don't presume to understand how anyone files their madness, I only know how I file mine. By taking anti-biotics away from people, yes, you can help with over population in today's world. I don't think it's really fair for everyone who's taken anti-biotics every time they get the sniffles, anti-biotics can weaken one's immune system. However; if we clone everyone who dies young, we would over populate the world in a matter of generations. Someone dies every 1.5 seconds, someone is born every .85 seconds (If not exactly, it's something close) So what would happen if people stopped dying? We would see the change in our life, food prices would sky rocket, supply and demand, as would everything else with that many more consumers. Those of us who live in the middleclass would be struck with poverty fairly quickly, and we would wage war against the rich. Terrorists spring from poverty like disease. I'm not saying any of us would, but our grand children or great grand children, who would be born without the chance of hope or love we've experienced, they just might.

That said, no, I don't think it's fair a father of 4 dies, I think it's tragic when a child dies. But to live, as Dave has, shows great strength of character. Our dearly departed would have wanted us to live, not dwell on their deaths for our entire lives. When my friend died, I turned into your standard teenage rebel, doing things just to displease the older generations. That's not what we were like before, we were young kids, enjoying life, best friends forever type thing. He might have been disappointed in what I became. When I was 14, I got my first girlfriend, when I was 15 she died, she had window seat, I had middle. If I had gotten into the car first, I would have died. I lived with that regret, casting me into deep depression until I was 18. She wouldn't have wanted that, not one bit. Now, I'm 19, looking back at the years I threw away, dishonoring my dearly departed by becoming something less than what we were. If the high school years are truly one's greatest, I enjoyed half of my senior year and threw the rest away. Never before having the courage to enjoy life, but now I take everything it has to offer with new friends, not to replace those I've lost, but to live what I have left. That's what I meant by excepting death, I didn't mean to come off as unsympathetic, not one bit, and if I offended you or anyone else, I offer my deepest apologies.
 
Well

I have to agree with Dave. I think morally it is wrong. I don't understand why the big brains just can't use all of this to solve the problems we already have instead of creating new ones.

I don't like the idea of a copy of me walking around after I'm dead.
 
Has anybody read Alduous Huxley's "Brave New World"? Should we create a new, genetically engineered caste system? Who will be able to afford the cloning of a deceased beloved one? Who will prevent the abuse of this technique to create an army of fierce warriors? Just a few of the questions that arise within me.

We don't even know 10% of how genetics really work, IMO. Yet, we start to play with it. There's a reason why the access to explosives is denied to the average man on the street. But cloning seems to me like handing hand-grenades to children, on the mere promise that they'll handle them with care. Scientifically, we're still children when it comes to genetic engineering, let alone cloning.

I'm not completely against it. All I ask is: Please let's wait until we understand at least 90% of the process, and the consequences. Presently, it's simply too dangerous in my opinion.
 
Pandoras Box....

As I said...MANY questions...and FEW answers. One thing to consider is that this technology is in a state of infancy...with attention and funding it will advance significantly and be able to address some of the issues that many of you have surfaced...telomeres prominently among them. I believe there is funding in the pipeline right now for that particular project due to the tie in with overall DNA research. Where will this technology be in 5, 10 or 15 years? If you use the advances in computer science as a framework, the level of competence in that time period might be enormous! But...we'll still be struggling with many issues of the ethical sense, imo. I too have lost loved ones at a young age...their potential untouched, the "what-ifs" haunting me and beckoning violent answers, as Dave has described. The only thing keeping my little sisters husband alive was a deathbed promise she extracted from my father and I, and it was still a shaky thing for a few years. If we had this technology, in an advanced, perfected version...what would we do about such things? Would it all come down to money? The value of an individual to society as a whole? What would the criteria be? Can we solve the overpopulation issue it would create? Yup...but it would take work and cooperation and perhaps even terrafroming another planet in the solar system...none of which is far beyond our capabilities as a species, should we decide to focus on these things.....lotta questions...lot. Q
 
What's New

12/2/2024
Check out Clips4Sale for Holiday sales!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top