Human Cloning: Why not?

[Bak]

Except for reasons from a 2000 year old book, why shouldn't we do human cloning? I think it would be cool to have a clone of myself.

 

If we mess up and create some deformed mutant we could obv detect that while it's still an embryo and abort before any brain waves or anything. But this is only with the development of the process, which is one aspect of the problem. The other question is that if we had a perfect process to clone humans, would it still be immoral/wrong... and why.

 

For those of you that don't know how cloning works it's basically they inject some adult DNA into an embryo (after sucking its original DNA out), and then a genetically identical being develops (like an identical twin, it doesn't keep your memories and ages at a normal speed).

 

In the way I see it happening, the clone would have all the same rights as any human, we couldn't use them for wars or for organ harvesting. Incidentally, religions might not see these as immoral since they might make the case that clones lack souls... but that's a bit of a strawman.

 

Related: http://www.slate.com/id/2205310/?GT1=38001

[»Lynx]

Because ~% of Americans are Christians, and ~70% of the United Kingdom are Christians.

 

-Lynx

[Bak]

Except for reasons from a 2000 year old book

[»Lynx]

Oh why shouldn't we... I read why don't we... Yeah, I'll type up some bullshit later, although it's going to just be like beating another dead horse.

 

-Lynx

[Dav]

even without religion there are a lot of reasons why people would be against it.

 

more realistically you will have degradation of the genome if you do it too many times and (sci fi referance coming up) suffer the same fate as the asguard in stargate.

[Synister]

They shouldn't even have attempted this. It's playing god, people are meant to live, die etc. Not be cloned. And of course there could be side effects, the clone could live for a month then die.. it could mutate.. they can by accident create a super-human who knows. Whatever the case, it's wrong.

[»Lynx]

Synister. That post was painful to read.

[»Purge]

I wouldn't mind having a clone army...

[Bak]

even without religion there are a lot of reasons why people would be against it.

list some off. So far we have degradation of the genome, and the potential for failures while perfecting the process.

[JoWie]

because there are enough people on the planet, dont need any more with rare exceptions

[»Ducky]

I don't understand why people say "it's not meant to happen."

If the ability is there, it's meant to happen.

There's really no possible conclusion to this argument that doesn't touch upon religion. Regardless of any gene factors, precautionaries can be taken in any cloning situation to bypass abnormalities.

 

On the point of religion, I'd like to know where from the bible it states "thou shalt not clone." For all anyone knows, God wants us to clone.

[Dav]

it could mutate.. they can by accident create a super-human who knows. Whatever the case, it's wrong.

 

not can, will mutate

 

Every single replication of your DNA will contain errors as the DNA replication machinery is not perfect. (this is how cancer forms) Sexual reproduction sees to it that random mutations that are passed on are renederd insignificant.

 

The thing is for your lifetime these mutaions are either doing nothing or cells with them are destroyed when it is detected.

 

A clone, then its clone may be OK but after too many times serious genetic problems will occur which can be fatal, or in a very very rare case cause a superhuman (the liklyhood of this is very low I might add, especially as there will be little selective pressure for improved traits, especially with cloning)

[»Lynx]

The whole 'It's playing God' argument is flawed right from the start. If you're basing your argument from a clock-in-the-desert perspective, then the intelligent designer would have already known that cloning is a possibility, and would have forced some form of intervention against that if it were possible. However, as the majority of us on this forum don't live on cloud nine, I don't think we need to get further into this argument.

 

As for cloning being wrong, look at the risk factor. The chances of things going very wrong, even if they were marginal (I honestly don't know, but I wouldn't say they're marginal) would be reason enough for it to not go ahead. It's not like it's something that the world *needs - and the only benefits we'd get from cloning would be more organs to go around, which we've already stated is morally and very ethically wrong.

 

-Lynx

[Hakaku]

[CRe]

I agree with Hakaku. For the article that Hakaku linked here is a readable translated version. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...=auto&tl=en

[Bak]

the only benefits we'd get from cloning would be more organs to go around, which we've already stated is morally and very ethically wrong

Where have we already stated this? Isn't this what we're talking about??? Furthermore, I disagree that more organs to go around is "very ethically wrong", not sure how we got to that conclusion?

 

the cloning argument doesn't need to be religious-based to be considered unacceptable.

This is where I'm interested; what is the non-religious argument that deems cloning unacceptable? Saying there exists such an argument isn't much better than saying "even without religion there are a lot of reasons why people would be against it." Enough meta-arguing; what are the actual points on the debate?

 

The article is a bit out of date. It claims (in the translation, anyways) that human cloning has already occurred: "a step has been taken by South Korean researchers who, for the first time, managed to create a human embryo by cloning and to derive stem cells". That scientist was actually lying, and when other scientists tried to repeat his process they were unsuccessful. That data was fabricated and the scientist discredited (and will have trouble finding any scientific job in the future). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm

 

The chances of things going very wrong, even if they were marginal would be reason enough for it to not go ahead.

The same was probably said when surgery was being developed. If we perfect the process on animals we can minimize risk. We also have to be careful to separate actual risks from things we've seen in movies (superhumans? really?).

[Dr Brain]

Evolutionary stagnation. It's not good for the species.

 

Think about it, someone with a genetic desire to clone themselves will have a higher likelihood of procreation with clones, until eventually the entire gene pool is filled with members that have a desire to clone themselves, leading to an end to evolution.

 

I don't personally believe that argument, because I don't feel that evolution or the welfare of the species is important. If you have a different view, however, then the argument might have merit.

 

Besides, there's really no good reason *for* cloning.

[»Ducky]

At the moment I don't see any merit in amss cloning either. But to simply clone one person for case study seems like a pretty good benefit to have.

[Incomplete]

It would be cool for some reasons though. I would love to have a fight with myself, be a bit like fight club!

 

Wasn't there some film with arny in it that had cloning in it?

[Dav]

Evolutionary stagnation. It's not good for the species.

 

Think about it, someone with a genetic desire to clone themselves will have a higher likelihood of procreation with clones, until eventually the entire gene pool is filled with members that have a desire to clone themselves, leading to an end to evolution.

 

I don't personally believe that argument, because I don't feel that evolution or the welfare of the species is important. If you have a different view, however, then the argument might have merit.

 

Besides, there's really no good reason *for* cloning.

 

 

it wouldn't necessarily lead to the end of evolution, between clones there will be genetic variation so it is possible that a clone with improved traits could be produced. Also we haven't ruled out the genetic engineering aespect which could be applied to a cone before it is implanted.

 

Likelihood is though that the mutations will lead to degradation of the genome rather then evolution.

[Dr Brain]

Genetic variation between clones means they're not truly clones. Genetic engineering is a topic independent of cloning. They might use the same techniques to grow a person, but the political and moral issues are very different.

 

With cloning, you remove the negative feedback potential of the "defective" genes. Their chances of procreation are still very high regardless of the survival of a single clone. Of course, the same applies to good mutations. This leads to a lower rate of adaptation in either direction (good or bad mutations), effectively slowing evolution.

[»Lynx]

But that is going on the pretense that evolution is a random thing that happens every however many thousand of years. This research says that evolution may occur on quite a different means.

 

-L

[FMBI]

The #1 (and potentially only needed) reason to avoid cloning is that it destroys the line we've drawn around humanity as distinct from every other species, and as only one species. If we start cloning, then, thanks to the miracle of libertarian feudalism, within a few hundred years we'll have an eternal overclass, descended from the present super-rich, living as virtual gods, while a massive underclass suffers in a hell of nonhumanity. The current inequalities and problems we face will be nothing compared to what we (or, rather, our descendants) will see then. And don't even think about what would happen when space travel got advanced enough for the super-rich clones to go to other planets, and, theoretically, stellar systems, leaving everyone else behind.

 

Another very important reason is that, even though the clones would be the new aristocracy of the future world, they'd also be trapped in a hell of meaninglessness. What the fuck does your life matter if your "parents" decided what you would look like, what basic characteristics you would have, and so forth? Especially when those characteristics happen to be an exact copy of one of those "parents"?

 

This, along with the inevitable cybernetic linkup, is probably the main reason I'm glad that I'll get to die sometime during the present century. I really don't want to see the entire world as we know it come apart, but I don't see any way to avoid it happening.

[Bak]

Besides, there's really no good reason *for* cloning.

 

One thing we could do is clone top scientists in the hopes that genetics played some part in their accomplishments (which I think is quite likely), which would in turn benefit everyone by accelerating discovery.

 

Additionally, real experiments could be done to determine how much genetics determine a person's future and how much of it is from environmental factors (and therefore influence policy for everyone's benefit). This doesn't need to be done unethically; for example we could create 100 clones and raise 50 in a city and 50 in a town and observe the differences years later. Right now all we have is identical twins separated at birth for these things, and 2 is a small sample size (using various pairs of identical twins helps, but introduces more variables from variations present among twin pairs).

 

Plus, we don't outlaw things because there's no reason for it, we outlaw things because they're harmful. There's no reason to hop around on one foot around my apartment building, but we're not outlawing that.

[Bak]

the clones would be the new aristocracy of the future world

I don't think this would happen. Why would a clone get more rights than a child of a super-rich person, for example? I'm also not sure what the problem was with clones traveling to space... how does this negatively affect me/future generations?

 

What the fuck does your life matter if your "parents" decided what you would look like, what basic characteristics you would have, and so forth

Well right now what you look like is essentially a random combination of your parents. Is your life meaningless because your characteristics are based on luck? Your parents already decide several factors that have large influences on your life (where you live, what sort of primary school you go to, your diet). Meaning in my life doesn't come from genetics, but instead from experiences and accomplishments, which genetic clones do not inherit.