Application of Cloning

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Nebula, Jun 26, 2002.

  1. Nebula Occasionally Frequent Registered Senior Member

    Is there any reason to actually clone a human? I mean actually giving birth to a replica, not growing new organs with stem cells and stuff.

    I can think of one practical application. If we cloned a human, we could observe its social development and use the original person as a control. So then we could see how much of an effect genetics has on our personality.

    I just don't think "because we can" is a good reason.

    What are your guys' thoughts?

    BTW, has anyone heard anything more of that reported cloning by that dude in Italy? I heard it was a hoax?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. NenarTronian Teenaged Transhumanist Registered Senior Member

    I see no real application of cloning beyond organs, and i think cloning a whole person would be kind of creepy. I dunno why though.

    However, when the technology to splice genes into a person's genome for different physical traits (another pair of arms, a T-rex tail, gills, etc) comes around, that would be sort of like cloning a whole person...Well, it'd be more like imparting some new genetics to an embryo then growing the embryo in a petri dish, then inserting it for IVF. i guess.

    Bad sides of cloning a whole human? In the future militaries would clone many copies of the same individual with good traits (agility, speed, stamina, endurance, strenghth) for their armies. They'd also probably make the clones so they have no free will of their own, and do what they are somehow programmed to do.

    Anyway, that's my thoughts
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nebula Occasionally Frequent Registered Senior Member


    I'm scared of all biological-warfare tactics, ESPECIALLY cloned's the attack of the clones!

    The one good thing about being able to clone humans is that is is a strong argument against the existence of a "soul".
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. NenarTronian Teenaged Transhumanist Registered Senior Member

    Soul or not, its still creepy, despite me being a huge biology fan and a libertarian. Would armies of clones be consider biowarfare (BW)? BW usually puts in mind bacteria, viruses, toxins, peptides, hallucinogenic drugs, etc. Though i suppose as more and more different ways of killing people are developed we'd have to re-classify the different methods.

    Just think: One day there'll be something like "nanogoo", when released it could wipe out entire armies from the genome up. Or, it could target specific ethnicities. Great, a nano-holocaust.

  8. Nebula Occasionally Frequent Registered Senior Member


    I'm usually against war, especially BW....but if hallucinogens were used, I may reconsider this POV

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    BTW, I do think cloned armies counts as BW personally. Whats the difference between developing bacteria or developing humans?
  9. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    I do not see cloning as of much importance. I think the gene therapy may have great potential for mankind. To be able to shake lose all the genetic defects that have plagued mankind throughout would be a great boon. It would be nice to know that your kids would have every chance in life for the best with a great start to boot.
  10. 555 Sleak and Cyber Registered Senior Member

    I put forwards these points about cloning:

    This topic usually gets the most people in an uproar, and why? When they hear of a clone, they think of a baby.

    When you look at what human cloning is about, we aren't talking of a baby, we aren't even talking of a fetus that would become a baby.

    We are talking about an egg that has been removed from a womans womb that would not naturally turn into a child (because it lacks the womb). This egg then has DNA inserted into it (again un-natural), and then it's bombarded with radiation (to cause a lepton reaction) to get the DNA to take.

    The now embryo is NOT returned to a womb, but sits in a laboratory in the right conditions, to only grow enough to have such things as Stem cells extracted.

    Also Women have periods and during that time their body dumps infertilised eggs. If you are to look at a woman giving her egg's to such experiments and she isn't having sexual relationships with a partner(or partners) she would not becoming pregnant naturally, therefore isn't losing any infants.

    This means in all due respect that it would never live due to it not being in a womb and due to it being un-natural, therefore the immoral issues that some put forwards, shouldn't really be issues.

    Although sounding hypocritical this means I agree with some cloning and not others. The cloning I agree with is the creation of cells through embryo's that would never had been lifeforms naturally. (as stated at the beginning)

    The ones I disagree with is the creation of babies, as this would be completely immoral as every creature created would be an abomonation of a naturally selective design.
    Such creatuers wouldn't naturally have been given lift, so really they shouldn't exist.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2002
  11. AdrienVeidt Registered Member

    This is hog-wash. Every cell in the human body is alive. An egg's presense inside or out of the uterus isn't what makes it "alive" or "natural". What difference do these concepts make, anyway?

    To me, no-one has the right to make choices concerning another's right to be who they want to be, with the exception of parents of children. Obviously, a fertilized egg is pretty much the most child-like a human could be, so any decisions made about a fertilized egg should be the decision of only the parents.

    But, IMHO, I don't think parents have rights to harm their children, only the right to make the best decision for the child's future welfare.

    So, ultimately, I'm against using fertilized eggs, which are designed to grow into fully-formed humans. However, once that human is an adult, he or she can do anything they wish with their body as long as no-one else is harmed. This is why I'm 100% in favor of adult stem cell research, even if initial reports say they may not have all the uses of fetal stem cells.

    It all comes down to who you will allow to be harmed by your choices. Yes, a fertilized egg isn't a person, but neither is a 6-month old infant, in truth. Humans don't really form an independant identity until they're about 2 years old. But, the potential and inclination to do so is there from the moment the sperm enters the egg. It's at that point that I think our right to interfere ends.
  12. Assasin001 Registered Member

    But that is the ONLY use anyone could have for clones...infantry, servants, assasins or something similar. I for one really wish that the human race had never disvovered this particular piece of technology. The only thing it can lead to is missery...for everyone.

  13. axonio98 Banned Banned

  14. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Full human beings? Nah... not for ethical reasons.

    Slave labor, legions of mindless soldiers, and the like would be feasable, but quite evil.
  15. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    FYI: I believe only sapients should be treated as people. Genetic information is irrelevant. After all, a tumor has enough of your dna to be considered human.
  16. Delvinity Registered Member

    Cloning and gentic tampering are definitely in the cards for the future. The surface has merely been scratched.
  17. BobG Registered Senior Member

    Why would a clone be any more suspectible to brainwashing then an ordinary person which a clone is merely a copy of.

    The only argument against cloning is he likelyhood of defects and the fact it would have a horrible upbringing though admittedly I don't lke the idea of designer babies purely because everyone will look the same
  18. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Cloned human != robot

    A cloned human would not be an exact replica of anyone. Why? A large part of who we are was developed socially.

    The downside of cloning humans is monotony. It would reduce individuality. People would look just like other people. Clones would be considered sub-human. They would grapple with issues touched on in the movie AI even though that was about robots.

    Is there an upside? Well, you could say there are many identical twins in the world. People don't have much of a problem with them and they are basically a model for what cloning a human would be like. We could use cloning to steer our own evolution...clone smarter, peaceful, visionaries. Of course, that raises alot of ethical concerns.
  19. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Well, clones could be raised from before birth to behave a certain way. A normal person has parents (usually).
  20. AdrienVeidt Registered Member

    "be raised from before birth to behave a certain way" is how everybody is raised. But, that's not really your or my point for this post, but, the fact that the way clones would be raised would be the same way orphans are raised today. And, since there aren't legions of brain-washed orphans attempting to take over the world, I don't see why clones would be any different.

    The "how" of learning is irrelevant. Now and in the future, it will be the "what" of learning that matters.
  21. pumpkinsaren'torange Registered Senior Member

    i got news for ya, Delvitinty...

    the time for cards is now.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    what i mean is....the future is, arrgh. i mean, they are ALREADY cloning and "tampering"..
  22. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Well, parents dont raise their offspring with a distinct purpose.
    No legions of orphans? If various tyrants heard that I am sure they would try it. It would work too.

  23. Delvinity Registered Member

    Right - thats what I said.

Share This Page