Cloning-for or agiast?

[Masquerouge]

I'm personally against it. Great evil could come from improper use of that technology.

To be honest that's pretty much true of any technology improperly used. I'd rather judge technologies by their potential for improving our lives than by the great evils they would bring if abused on a massive scale.

Would we have been right to discard flight because of bombers and jet fighters? Electricity because of the electric chair? The internet because of kiddie porn?

Cloning will bring its good side and its bad. It's up to us to determine how we'll use it, but I do not see anything INHERENTLY bad about cloning.

 

[Perfection]

I'm against cloning, death to Aspen!

 

[LucyDuke]

Maybe one of you naysayers can explain the problem to me.

It seems that most of the opposition to cloning is a gut reaction to an unrealistic representation of cloning. In reality, if a clone is produced carefully, how is its genetic similarity to the "original" any different from an identical twin? In reality, if a clone is produced carefully, how is its "test-tube"-iness any different from another IVF baby? Of course it's wrong to use a human as an organ farm, but that's not an issue restricted to cloning. I really just don't see what people are so up in arms about.

 

[El_Machinae]

As a kneejerk response, it seems that (with animals) the clone is much less healthy than the wildtype animal. If cloned people were similar (as can be expected) it seems immoral to generate them intentionally.

 

[LucyDuke]

As a kneejerk response, it seems that (with animals) the clone is much less healthy than the wildtype animal. If cloned people were similar (as can be expected) it seems immoral to generate them intentionally.

Right, but if we can set that aside, because it's also reasonable to expect that our technologies will improve and that problem will abate, what's left? (I'm not saying nothing's left.)

 

[Masquerouge]

Maybe one of you naysayers can explain the problem to me.

It seems that most of the opposition to cloning is a gut reaction to an unrealistic representation of cloning. In reality, if a clone is produced carefully, how is its genetic similarity to the "original" any different from an identical twin? In reality, if a clone is produced carefully, how is its "test-tube"-iness any different from another IVF baby? Of course it's wrong to use a human as an organ farm, but that's not an issue restricted to cloning. I really just don't see what people are so up in arms about.

Exactly.

As a kneejerk response, it seems that (with animals) the clone is much less healthy than the wildtype animal. If cloned people were similar (as can be expected) it seems immoral to generate them intentionally.

But just because we've not mastered the technology does not invalidate the principle of cloning?

 

[El_Machinae]

Right, but if we can set that aside, because it's also reasonable to expect that our technologies will improve and that problem will abate, what's left? (I'm not saying nothing's left.)

Oh, you're quite right. My logical could have been used to keep a moratorium against IVF births too. Clearly the technologies could improve to the point where the clone is as healthy as any normal person. At that point, I wouldn't have any objection.

Sadly, my objection is one of those ones that can only be disproven through evidence. I know it's not the best position to take. I'm basically saying "I don't want you to clone people, because I think the people will be unhealthy. And so I will try to stop you. The only thing that will get me to stop stopping you is if you produce healthy cloned people!"

... I do my best when I try to form ethical structures, sometimes I fail.

And to be clear, as long as we're not generating a person, I give all cloning research my full moral support.

 

[Masquerouge]

And to be clear, as long as we're not generating a person, I give all cloning research my full moral support.

Just because of the current health issues? Or is there something else?

I don't see what's bad about a healthy cloned person.

 

[El_Machinae]

Just because of the current health issues? Or is there something else?

No, that's it, really.
Maybe I shouldn't have volunteered to answer Lucy's question.

 

[Gladi]

Right, but if we can set that aside, because it's also reasonable to expect that our technologies will improve and that problem will abate, what's left? (I'm not saying nothing's left.)

Ah, but it is not.

You see every time a cell splits it takes on further mutations and imperfections, which is usually not enough to kill us (because there is so much of ballast, which is NOT redundant). Thus if you take a DNA sample from aged creatures, its DNA too will be aged, yes one day maybe you could work directly with code, but then not knowing the original DNA you would essentially be creating somebody new from similar basis. Thus to ensure the ethical treatment of the clone the sample would have to be taken extremely early, that is not what people usually think of as cloning.

 

[Masquerouge]

No, that's it, really.
Maybe I shouldn't have volunteered to answer Lucy's question.

Well that's fine then. I understand your concern with the current state of cloning.

 

[Technocactus]

I'm for cloning.

I'd clone Jamie Carragher 14 times and have an unbeatable team of Scouse Footballers.

Each of whom would only score every 6 years or so?

 

[Kozmos]

Lets see we have Clone armies from SW and of course Dark Angel Jessica Alba. LET THE CLONING BEGIN!