Human Cloning?

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Originally posted by Hitro

The question of the characteristics is not cleared (yet?). That would be indeed one of the few good things coming along with cloning complete humans, the question of nature and nurture could be answered.

Whether you favour creation or evolution there is one basic thing in common (or was until now). Nature (or God) decided which individual would live or not. If humans get the opportunity to decide that (and unfortunately they do) they will use it.
Then you have to ask: Who decides what is worth living and what is not? Who can be cloned and who doesn't?
I don't trust the human race enough to be happy with the thought of them answering these questions.

And actually I don't see a point in cloning complete human beings (or dogs). What should be the sense of that? They can't be exchanged for the individual they were cloned from in terms of character and expirience. They may be exchanged in physical terms, that actually is a very scary thought, as it opens the door for the production of humans for practical reasons, which is highly immoral imo.

Humans are part of nature and hence they are and everything they do is natural. We're using tools that were made from natural substances using natural processes to make clones. If this were unnatural then it would be supernatural and I don't think anyone does magic. And humans improving themselves through genetic engineering is a type of evolution that is accomplished using natural laws with natural compounds. No artificiality here. Thats in your head. Humans are 'smarter' than nature when it comes to us accomplishing and reaching are ends since nature is indifferent and we know what we want to accomplish and just manipulate the 'natural' world to our will.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by Lt.Col. Kilgore
Damn good point. Your right. I'm just a weary about bringing a sort of evolved human type into existance because they will definately get rid of us 'obsolete' humans.

Thank you for noticing my post! Now if only someone who doesn't think it's a good point would post something, we could possibly pull this argument of of the "Oh, no! The evil clones are going to get us! We'd better scuttle stem-cell research!" ditch.

So, if I may, Lt.Col., let me address your statements. You fear that better, brighter people will lead us to obsolescence. But what I'm talking about isn't just improving our children, it's improving us too. Frankly, why I'm excited about the prospects of genetic engineering, medical nanotechnology, etc, is the fact that we may become smarter and live forever.

And not just in a selfish way, either. Think about immortality in terms beyond what we have traditionally read about in novels and seen in movies. What would it to to us ethically, for example? One possible benefit, to my mind, is that the idea that life doesn't have to end might just finally cause us to see death--especially murder--as absolutely unthinkable. Immortality could just bring about the end of war.

The implications of how all of these technologies can improve us as a species, and finally cause us to rise beyond the pettynesses inherent in human nature must be considered. Scaremongering about how evil clones will lead to perfect armies and all such nonsense is superstitious and ridiculous--and not unlike the 'argument' of those who used to perpetuate myths that, if we traveled too far, we might fall off the edge of the world.

And let's not forget that 'genetic technology' doesn't lead only to cloning; it includes all research based on genes. It includes the potential cure for Alzheimer's I mentioned before, which hopes to regenerate brain cells from embryonic stem cells. Well, if one can regenerate dead brain cells, maybe one can go over the quota too and produce extra brain cells. We could become smarter.

Anyway, we've already transcended nature; where we evolve from here is entirely up to us. I think we need to think carefully about where we want to go--not whether we should.

 

[Apollo]

Two quick things:

If we make it so everybody can live forever and we don't get rid of their need for food and air in the process then we will have some definite problems while restricted to this tiny planet.

I'm not too keen on the idea of harvesting fetuses for stem cells. I heard somewhere that it's possible to get these cells needed in genetic research from the umbilical cord after birth. Is this true? because I'd be fine with that.

 

[cleopatra143]

Yes Apollo, I've heard the same thing. I also heard that a man had cancer and that they took a few cells "from his brain" and cured his cancer. That way, you have a very low chance of you body rejecting the new cells.

I've also been hearing that our Senators are telling everyone that they are against human cloning but are for theraputic cloning. Well I'm sorry to say, but unfortunately its the same damn thing. You still have to go through the process of creatingand killing an embryo. The ONLY difference is that your not injecting into the womb or a test tube. As far as I'm concerned, if we give anyone the ability to do such testing, it will ALWAYS end up being used for the wrong purpose. While I'm not against research, such as other ways of using cells, I'm defianately against allowing human embryo farms to open for profit. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. Keep that in mind.

Please check out these two sites for more information.
www.cloninginformation.org
www.nrlc.org

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by DamnCommie
Also, to Hitro:
How does cloning give humans power over who lives and who dies? It does no such thing. If I am cloned, that clone is not me.
Making a clone of me does not make me immortal. It makes an identical twin who is 25 years younger than I am.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond
This is a moot point. We decide such things already, through medical procedures ranging from abortion to screening fetuses for any number of physical and genetic defects. Not to mention the simple use of drugs and other treatments on people already born, thus 'deciding' that someone will live despite the fact that 'Nature' has chosen to given them a massive heart attack topped by a debilitating stroke.

Sure.
That's not what I meant. I meant that in a broader sense also extended to genetics in general. Technology like that gives us the power to decide which characteristics are worth living in the future. I'm not talking about individuals who are already living. My point is, would you still be around if your parents could have cloned your dad (or Elvis, if they liked him...)? Or have had a nice healthy, blond , blue-eyed 'superhuman' (assuming you aren't that already ). Would they have chosen a 'random' child instead of that?
Many would not, and that will lead to a more or less dramatic change in the diversity of human beings. That alone doesn't have to be a problem, but I fear it could be, for the simple thought of WHO will decide about this...
This is not related to cloning alone, of course.
I've probably just heard too much about 'Lebensborn'.

If everything is done by decent people with good and fair goals, not much would be a problem in the world. But very soon things like greed and egoism will come into play.

 

[Jezebel]

oops please delete

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by Hitro

My point is, would you still be around if your parents could have cloned your dad (or Elvis, if they liked him...)? Or have had a nice healthy, blond , blue-eyed 'superhuman' (assuming you aren't that already ). Would they have chosen a 'random' child instead of that?

Hmmm, I think I would actually. I think my parents would have and IMHO most people would choose sexual reproduction over clonal reproduction. First of all, it's more fun. Second of all, I think most (certainly not all, but most) people have an instinctual drive to reproduce with their partner in life. I know my wife and I would far prefer to have our own child someday than a clone of either of us (or elvis for that matter). Look how few parents are willing to adopt children despite the population problems, and numbers of unwanted babies. No, I think no matter how widespread cloning becomes it will never predominate over sex. There is a molecular reason for this as well. Organisms have a limit as to how accurately they can copy their DNA. With creatures as complex as human beings, there are billions of nucleotides to think about, and every time our genome is copied, there are a few errors (exactly how many is not quite known yet, but we know there are some.) Now with sex, you have two copies, one from each parent, and minor errors in one can be compensated for by the other. Not so with cloning. This is one of the hypothesized reasons why virtually all complex life reproduces sexually.
(For a more complete and coherent explanation of the evolution of sex and complexity, try either The Cooperative Gene by Matt Ridley or The Red Queen by Mark Ridley) (although I may have mixed up my Ridleys.)

As for selecting for "superhuman" traits in embryos a la Brave New World, well that's something of a different matter, and a different subject from cloning. I see no problem with correcting disease, but I get a little nervous thinking about uber-kids. Probably just too much sci-fi on my part though. Logically, if everyone were more intelligent, stronger, faster, and long-lived, the world would be a better place. Realistically however, not everyone in the world is going to have such options for their children all at once, which will create a problematic disparity.
Although, if one society engineers itself to be able to outthink, outlive, and outfight all others, and those others go the way of the dodo, well isn't that just nature in its purest form? Genetic and technological superiority allowed Homo to drive Australopithecus to extinction, and Homo sapiens to do the same to Homo neanderthalensis. Basically that's all nature has been for billions of years even before our momentous arrival, is species developing the ability to outcompete others, who then die off. Should we put a stop to this just because in the intervening millions of years we grew a conscience? Hmmmmm, perhaps yes we should, but it is still something to consider.
Perhaps we should make Genetic Engineering of humans a no-no until it is uniformly available to all people in the world. If that ever happens I might consider us responisble enough to wield the technology. However, another important consideration is that just because our society rejects the technology as irresponsible, doesn't mean that others wouldn't embrace it. Then who goes the way of the dodo hmm? Any society with a sense of responsibility that's who. Perhaps those of us who are responsible enough to consider the uses of such technology carefully should implement them, if only to avoid being trampled by others with no such qualms.
Ok, I'm finished with my extraordinarily long rant. You'll probably notice that I have about 100 conflicting viewpoints written down here. That is because this is an incredibly complex issue, and well.....I'm kind of conflicted about it.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by Hitro
My point is, would you still be around if your parents could have cloned your dad (or Elvis, if they liked him...)? Or have had a nice healthy, blond , blue-eyed 'superhuman' (assuming you aren't that already ). Would they have chosen a 'random' child instead of that?

I don't think the choice is 'blond, blue-eyed' versus 'random.' First of all, if we could choose physical characteristics, we would all choose different ones. I personally wouldn't choose blond and blue-eyed at all, especially if everyone were doing it. I'd want my kid to be an individual. I think this feeling would be much more widespread than we have even considered. If anything, being able to choose physical characteristics would cause humans to become more different from each other than we are now. It might become acceptable, for instance, to design a kid with purple hair and green furry skin. And really, why not? It would quickly become no weirder than seeing people covered in tatoos, with dyed hair and a pound of metal bits piercing their skin.

Believe me, blond-and-blue-eyed would be a very quick fad.

As for 'random,' there surely are different degrees of it? You could still start with the original 'roll of the dice' genetic prototype and then modify it here and there as you wish--and, of course, according to regulations to restrict, say, you giving your kid 6 arms just for fun. Sort of like many governments today which prohibit you from naming your own kid something like "Toiletbreath" for humane reasons (although that's probably not the most eloquent analogy , it does fit).

My point is, you'd still be the result of your mother and father's DNA mixing, but better. Cleaned up and souped up, if you will.

The 'cloning Elvis' stuff would become yesterday's fad very quickly as well, as soon as people began realizing that things like musical ability depend far more on environment than genetics. And besides, if there were a 'musical gene', let's say, why would you want to clone Elvis? Just add the gene to your own original creation--your kid.

Finally, that 'would you still be around if...' stuff is just plain silliness. You don't need to consider cloning for that. For instance, I wouldn't be around if my father had married his first girlfriend instead of my mother. But if he had, then some other guy would be sitting somewhere thinking, "what if he had married someone else?"

The future is not predetermined.
:skull:<---that's supposed to look like the Terminator.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Well put Mr. Bond.

You've given me something new to think about.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by DamnCommie
Perhaps we should make Genetic Engineering of humans a no-no until it is uniformly available to all people in the world.

An exceptionally good point amid many other excellent ones.

I really think that considering these things is very, very important. In fact, these may turn out to be the most crucial questions of our lives--indeed our generations' contribution to humanity.

Don't forget that most of us here live in democracies; how we feel about cloning and related research affects what lawmakers do. If we cower in fear of the 'cloned armies' and outlaw all such research be cause we once saw a movie where John Travolta became a super-genius and was really unhappy because super-smart people just want to be loved , we're not doing any good at all to anyone.

99% of the movies and books out there distort all of these issues completely out of proportion. We need to think about this with open minds.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by DamnCommie
Well put Mr. Bond. You've given me something new to think about.

Heh! We just patted each other's backs simultaneously!

 

[Hitro]

You both have good points about the issue in general but I think you missed what I was really concerned about. I probably haven't made it clear enough. Let me try again.

Of course not all people would choose 'blond and blue-eyed', I took it as an example because it is a choice that has been idealized already.
Of course cloning Elvis couldn't regenerate Elvis.
My point is another. I think you focus too much on rational people, like you obviously are yourself. But don't forget that very many of 'the others out there' aren't that rational. Maybe some would like their child to look like their favourite filmstar for example. You may say what's the problem, and that's okay. After all that doesn't have to bother you, it just bothers me for some reason.
Or some government decides that clones of their beloved leader would be a great idea. Or a certain race ideal. You can't completely rule that out.
And don't tell me that's science fiction, it already happened in the 30s and 40s, just that technology wasn't far enough and they used 'conventional' breeding methods.
I think that much more research into both cloning itself but also genetics as a whole has to be done before someone should be allowed to clone human beings, if at all. We shouldn't mess with something we don't even fully understand.
And so far nobody told me a reason if favour of cloning. What could that be?

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by Hitro
But don't forget that very many of 'the others out there' aren't that rational. Maybe some would like their child to look like their favourite filmstar for example. You may say what's the problem, and that's okay. After all that doesn't have to bother you, it just bothers me for some reason.

Fair enough. I agree completely that there are people out there who shouldn't be having kids at all, never mind being able to tinker with their children's genes. I guess the only thing I can say is that, in order to do anything like that they'd have to get the approval of a genetics professional of some sort. You can't just modify your DNA by plugging in to your computer at home (not yet, anyway... )

I don't mind making the process of making such modifications restrictive--actually i think it's necessary to do so, especially at first. Let's say you have to submit a proposal of what changes you may want to make and why, and they are judged by a panel of medical and ethics experts or something like that. Frivolous proposals like, "I want my daughter to look like Cameron Diaz because she's so HOT!" shouldn't be enough. That being said, I'm not saying there still aren't dangers. There are.

But, in a way, you could say the same about anything--we shouldn't develop airplanes because there's the danger some butthole's going to fly one into a building. The best we can do is try not to let buttholes have access to planes.

As for a reason in favour of cloning... you've got me there, I suppose. I can think of some relatively minor reasons--like for parents who are infertile and want a biologically-related child--but nothing Earth-shaking. I'm no scientist, so maybe I'm not aware of all the research applications. HOwever, I'm pretty sure no one--except that Italian quack and criminals like him--are really considering cloning a full human to birth.

But how's this: What are the reasons in favour of going to the Moon? Or figuring out the age of the universe?

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by Hitro
And don't tell me that's science fiction, it already happened in the 30s and 40s, just that technology wasn't far enough and they used 'conventional' breeding methods.

I assume you're referring to the nazi's eugenics programs.
And yet no one has considered putting a halt to sexual reproduction.
This is merely proof positive that anything can be perverted into something nasty, by a person with ill enough intent.
No object or technology in and of itself can be evil. Only those who use it can.

Originally posted by Hitro
And so far nobody told me a reason if favour of cloning. What could that be?

This is basically why I favor the cloning of embryos for research, but flip-flop on the idea of cloning a complete human. The applications of the former are obvious. But as to a complete clone, what does it tell us really, besides that it can be done? And trust me, if it can be done on livestock it can be done on human beings. Despite how our innate arrogance might cringe at the idea, at a molecular level, you and I are not hugely different from sheep. We're all mammals. If that's not enough for you, heck, do it on a chimp. That would tel you with 98% ceratainty that it would work on a human being
I mentioned earlier that it won't do a thing for "nature-nurture" that twin studies haven't done already. "Nature-nurture" is kind of a moot discussion at this point anyway. The basic aswer is "both" it's simply a matter of degree between genetics/pre-natal environment/post-natal environment.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by DamnCommie
This is basically why I favor the cloning of embryos for research...

To pre-emptively clarify what I know is coming--horrified posts imagining a lab full of identical babies all lined up with electrodes poking into them...

I believe the 'cloned embryos' scientists are interested in for research are something like 4 to 8 cells in size. That's too small to see. That's nothing that could even conceivably have feelings, intelligence, individuality or anything else. It's only human in potentiality.

In this case the only real argument is religious, really. Do you believe that human life is sacred from the moment the egg is fertilized, from the moment some kind of self-awareness exists, or from the moment of birth (or somewhere else in between)?

 

[cegman]

I know God gave us the ability when he created us. (I believe in creation just to many thing were chance for evolution to work but that is for a different debate.) I just think how would you like it to at birth someone came into the room and took dna from you that would be strange I know they wouldn't be the same but still who would want a genetic match walking around somewhere? Yes I know you will say but what are the chances of this happening I don't care that isn't important it is a what if.

Look I agree that cloning for organs is wrong but cloning organs is not wrong.

For all you religous people out there SHUT UP about cloning is wrong because the body is sacred. The body is God's temple but does that mean that we shouldn't clone it. The clone would just be a different person with the same genes. It is strange but one could be an atheist the other a catholic it depends on experience and what you do not your genetic makeup (look at identical twins). One more thing God is not for problems he is for saving us and conforting us when we sin which we will always do. We will always die because we could have a car accident and die on the spot or God could make an organ be rejected because it is their time.

I hope I didn't miss anything ooh no cracks about the cloning you because that is how I feel if it is sci-fi well then to bad ignore it. I know there is little chance but I don't know I feel that way and unless there is complete evidence it will never happen I will feel that way.

Whoever was talking about cloning a dog why what is the point you want a dog that has the same genetic make up but different caracteristics btw this was on human cloning.

Opps forgot about the when babies exist I believe they are alive when they move often.

That was long. I am way to young to start worrying about this but oh well I will keep on doing it.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by cegman
That was long. I am way to young to start worrying about this but oh well I will keep on doing it.

Yes, that was long--and although I don't think you are too young to discuss it, I am certainly too old to waste my time figuring out just what it is that you're trying to say...

No offense meant, but punctuation does exist for a reason.

 

[cegman]

I did my best but I really am too young to discuss this. I just couldn't get any indents so I just tried to make as many periods but I am one to rant and not breathe or put punctuation.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
And besides all this, religion should play no part whatsoever in the politics deciding what is done with regards to cloning or ANY government decision for that matter, but George W still refuses to observe the Constitutional separation of Church and State.

"Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." -George Washington

That's all

 

[cleopatra143]

That was great Zarn!
I never did understand why our Constitution, our Pledge, even our money has references to God, but no one wants our President, our schools, or our workplaces to have anything to do with him. It just seems strange to me that this country was based on religious freedom yet no one has it.
Its kind of hypocritical to me, that when JFK was running for office they were upset because he was Catholic but now they are complaining because Bush is Christian!