Do you object to consensual cloning of humans?
If so, why?
I have not yet seen a convincing explanation of why I should be against it.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.It would make organized sports a joke. Could you imagine watching the Olympics with 100 Michael Phelps clones competing in swimmng and 100 Usain Bolt's competing in sprinting?
The NBA would consist of 100 LeBrons, 100 Kevin Durants, and 100 Anthony Davis's.
And imagine a rugby team or an American football team with 20 Jonay=h Lomu's
BD66
Level 8
Jan 25, 2019
0
BD66:
@PalacinkyPDX There are a lot of people who would like to win multiple gold medals in swimming, and they train incredibly hard, but there is only 1 Michael Phelps. There are a lot of people who would like to win multiple gold medals in sprinting, but only 1 Usain Bolt. Michael and Usain have a huge genetic advantage. If you cloned 100 Michael Phelps and 100 Usain Bolts and trained them for swimming and sprinting, they would not all achieve the success Phelps and Bolt did, but enough of them would enjoy tremendous success as youth athletes that they would stick with it and many would make it to the Olympic Games. In his worst Olympic Games as an adult, when Michael Phelps (only) won 4 golds and 2 silvers, he said "You get out of it what you put into it, and I only put enough into it to win 4 golds and 2 silvers"
@PalacinkyPDX "identical" twins are probably the closet to being genetically the same and your point is proven since one can develop into a star athlete and the other not...just because you start with the same physicality does not presume you will become the same end product. It takes environmental and developmental factors as well....training, nutrition, dedication, etc.
BD66:
@thinktwice Another data point to prove that if one identical twin is successful in sports, the other is likely to excel in the same sport:
[mentalfloss.com]
BD66:
@thinktwice Tom and Dick Van Arsdale
BD66:
@thinktwice Jason and Jarron Collins
@BD66 Exactly...they had the same conditions and were raised in the same environment...were exposed to the same sports...some were fraternal twins as well...I thought the discussion point was that just because a clone had the same genetics, they might not have the same environment and would not necessarily grow up to be an athlete, a mega soldier, etc. based on genetics alone...case in point: one twin might get a disease and the other not...if they are the same, why not? Environment, lifestyle, etc.
Epigenetics studies are now becoming more prominent in genetic research.
You mean I would need J Lo's consent to clone her? Damn it!!!
Piece2YourPuzzle
Level 8
Jan 25, 2019
0
I would think the cost would be prohibitive enough to not allow for frivolity...one wouldn't clone just to have their own likeness for ego purposes (uh...maybe...)...
I am guessing that the imagination of many go to creating humans to harvest organs or stem cells to help the initial host...which then raises the question of whether or not the clone would be considered a human or an animal...raising further questions as to the definition of a human (same mind? thoughts, etc.).
I would rather that we use tissues to create specific needs and not the entire being...an ear, a liver, etc. I see no value in attempting to create an identical person ...it probably poses more problems than it would solve...feeding, caring, etc.
Interesting food for thought...
thinktwice
Level 8
Jan 25, 2019
1
Exactly. That would only mean there would be two of me not getting laid.
@PalacinkyPDX And now you're a clinical psychologist. Impressive. 
If a clone has never experienced being alive theres no problem at all. Once a clone has achieved cognitive ability it is a sentient and should have full rights.
As all material things in life, they will only ever be available to those who can afford it. So forget any arguments that say its better for humanity it will be just another unaffordable commodity for most.
Nardi
Level 7
Jan 25, 2019
2
If cloning becomes legal, will rich people be able to clone themselves to be used as body parts? I have already read about a couple who had a baby specifically to be used as parts for their ill toddler (https://people.com/archive/to-save-their-daughter-from-leukemia-abe-and-mary-ayala-conceived-a-plan-and-a-baby-vol-33-no-9/ )
There are so many ethical questions about cloning that need to be determined before cloning is allowed. From my understanding, cloning is a relatively simple procedure so that isn't an issue. The issue I have is just because you can, should you do it? We need guidelines BEFORE, not after the fact.
kiramea
Level 7
Jan 25, 2019
0
@mzbehavin The point I made was that one couple had a child specifically to be used for another child. That was back in the early 90's, and I still remember the backlash that caused. We recently had the CRISPR incident in China, which two scientist modified two embryos. They were both fired, and I believe have been charged with a crime. I also have a friend that considers himself a GMO person. His parents went to Europe when he was young for illegal gene editing (that's all I know. He doesn't talk about it much).
Governments have used humans in back-door experiments for decades. That doesn't make it right. To be honest with you, cloning scares the hell out of me and I don't know why. As someone science-minded I see vast potential with it, but we need standards before we go that way.
First how can a clone consent to being a clone? I don't think it's exactly the same as the way that we couldn't choose our parents or even choose whether we wanted to actually exist. I think the ethical questions would be why would we clone a human being:
-to create superior humans?
-to harvest organs for transplant?
-to create sub-human laborers to be exploited.
-to stroke the egos of wealthy people who want numerous copies of themselves?
I think there's a lot more potential for unethical cloning than for beneficial uses. I honestly don't see any scenario that doesn't allow for exploitation of human beings based on their birth status.
JimG
Level 8
Jan 25, 2019
0
JimG:
@mzbehavin the difference is that a clone has only one contributor to its DNA. That could provide an irresistible temptation for human experimentation; think Mengele in mass production. Again, I can think of numerous nefarious purposes to clone humans but not one ethical one.
The exploitation occurring now could pale in comparison to the potential with clones.
What is the point of cloning oneself? It seems like a waste of time unless you can also imprint your memories, character & sense of identity. Then what about your clone's legal rights? As a copy of a tax-registered individual, does it own half of your assets? Is it legally married to your partner, or parent to your children? How is a clone going to feel, knowing that it is not a human of normal origin? Will the religious see it as an abomination without a soul, a violation of "God's plan"? Will it consider itself to have a soul?
What about the inevitable Texan that clones himself & then molests himself? Or some one who clones their recently deceased partner & carries on as if married whilst they're still underage? You know SOMEBODY is going to do something ####ed up with a clone.
Kohelath
Level 6
Jan 25, 2019
1
@PalacinkyPDX What I was getting at was that a clone (with all of the memories & knowledge of the original) may feel suicidal if they don't see the point in existing, which might be difficult if one sees oneself as a copy of an already living human. As far as I know, a person born via IVF is still usually an unique individual.
As far as I know, at this point in time, CRISPR isn't viable because it causes a cascade of unmonitored genetic change in other parts of the genome. But when it does happen, expect Gattaca or The Island! ?
"Is CRISPR gene editing doomed, even as gene therapy enters the clinic?"
[phys.org]
@PalacinkyPDX yes when talking about memories, I was presupposing that one reason for cloning oneself is to have those memories added afterwards, similar to Replicas & other sci-fi movies. Very useful if you're ridiculously rich & want to leave your money to an exact clone of yourself.
I think that when the time comes, our normal now will be the abnormal of the future. Once again, Gattaca!
@PalacinkyPDX thank you for your opinion. As I said in the beginning "It seems like a waste of time unless you can also imprint your memories, character & sense of identity. " So to reply to my comment means that you must accept & discuss the context, not reject it as science fiction. We live in a science fiction world as far as 99.9% of history would be concerned.
@PalacinkyPDX sigh. Please re-read the thread & maybe go have some fun in the sun.
It’s seems to be one of those shaded areas in Venn diagram where science and ethics meet.
From a scientific point, of course, to push back our boundaries of knowledge (and has probably been done already anyway).
From an ethical viewpoint, where does this put the cloned individual. We need to ascertain what the qualities of s cloned individual are. I have no idea of how the mechanics of this works and the psychological effects of donor and cloned.
Geoffrey51
Level 8
Jan 25, 2019
0
there would be that many more people. I'm kind of putting that on the con side of the list.
hankster
Level 9
Jan 25, 2019
0
Humans ruin everything we touch.
This would be no different.
The inevitability of unintended consequences are reason enough for me.
KKGator
Level 9
Jan 25, 2019
1
@mzbehavin I would suspect breeding and cloning bring different outcomes but I’m no geneticist so I can only have opinion which, in this argument is valueless.
@Geoffrey51 Which is pretty much where I'm at with it. All I have is an opinion.
I don't like the idea, and I see no good coming from it. We've already over-populated this rock as it is. Cloning would only exacerbate that problem.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.