Honesty Rocks! truth rules.

The Cloning Issue Should cloning be used to create the perfect human?

HOME      >>       Science and Technology

illini319

i highly doubt we could ever quantify/define soul with anything scientific. so i'll leave that one alone. to get back at the cloning issue...there is nothing wrong with cloning; only in how it is used. the fastest way to make something dangerous is to outlaw it. Establish ethical regulations and enforce these rules.


mpinsky

i highly doubt we could ever quantify/define soul with anything scientific. so i'll leave that one alone. to get back at the cloning issue...there is nothing wrong with cloning; only in how it is used. the fastest way to make something dangerous is to outlaw it. Establish ethical regulations and enforce these rules.


I fail to see what you mean here. Maybe it's because I didn't quite understand what you wrote. Anyways, the fastest way to make something dangerous is not to outlaw it, but to misuse it.

While I do agree with cloning as long as the purpose is ligitimite, cloning an entire human makes me rather uncomfortable. I mean, what would it prove except that we could?

Also, people get this notion in their minds that a clone will look exactly like its DNA donor and that it will be empty-minded. People have to understand that you're not creating a human being that has no personal will of its own or will be just like its donor, but a whole different entire being with its own range of emotions, thoughts, and feelings.

Chesso

It's just an alternate to natural birth that has the possibility of being a little more controlled.There is alot of bad things that could come out of it but also alot of possible good. If we could find certain defining things that will cause problems later in life for a human they could be removed/altered to help prevent or not have it in the first place.But that requires alot of testing and refining..... I'm sure that there would be alot of hell over it.


illini319

I don't think it is particularly useful for cloning an entire human. I don't even see the true purpose of it (cost/effective ratio). Surely, I can see how people might want to grow organs that are genetically similar to theirs. In such cases, growing an entire human being doesn't seem particularly useful when all I need is a heart... or a kidney etc. So, when I said there isn't any problem with cloning... I meant that I don't have any problem with cloning within the definition of 'organ' backup.


kerouac

Take a situation where a woman's father is dying of an incurable disease. The father also is a surgeon and is very good at his job. Then consider a man who has just broken up with his girfriend. Both individuals might have perfectly valid reasons for wanting to clone someone, but which should be allowed?


mpinsky

I'm going to have to disagree with that.Why would you clone someone for that reason? Not only is it expensive, as I've said before, just because you clone someone doesn't mean that they will have the same thoughts, feelings, memories, abilities, etc. as its DNA donor does. Cloning someone is basically creating a whole new person, not an exact replica that will act exactly the same.Plus, I think breaking up with one's girlfriend is not a very good reason for cloning. Why would one even use that method in such a situation in the first place?


Arbitrary

Take a situation where a woman's father is dying of an incurable disease. The father also is a surgeon and is very good at his job. Then consider a man who has just broken up with his girfriend. Both individuals might have perfectly valid reasons for wanting to clone someone, but which should be allowed?

I agree with mpinsky on this one--why should they be allowed to clone? This could easily turn into a class war--the rich people get to clone because they can afford it, so in turn they live many times happier than the poor with all their wishes fulfilled. The poor have no way of compensating for the payment and thus the gap between the rich and poor widens even further. It's also implying that lives can be bought, and that the wealthy's lives are worth more than the indigent.
@Chesso, yes, it probably seems a lot better to base it off choice--you do what you want, but in turn this can have problems. Suppose Family A decides that they want their child's genes to be chosen by them and Family B lets nature chose. It's most likely that Family A will have the smarter, prettier, better, etc child than Family B, meaning that Family A's child is better at Family B's child in nearly everything that matters in our world. Now Family B will feel annoyed that their child cannot make it in the competitive world and the next child they have they will most likely decide to choose its genes.

This in turn becomes a cycle--no family wants their child to be incompetent and unable to survive in their world, so they have to change the genes, all because of one family.

Moreover, even with choice there is still the factor with the rich and the poor--by allowing the filtering of unwanted genes, who is rich and who is poor will be defined by whose genes have been chosen and whose have not. Those whose genes have not been filtered will end up being poor, and vice versa. And since it is most likely that those with chosen genes will be more intelligent than their counterparts, their counterparts may not even realize that they are being manipulated to do manual labor/some other form of unwanted work.

Freedom of choice cannot really be achieved unless everyone starts on equal grounds. And even if everyone did start on equal grounds now, they won't once some of them decide to choose genes and others decide not to.

Chesso

I was thinking more along the lines of changes that help prevent/protect against or completely remove common/well known diseases, virus's etc.I suppose that might just help prolong life even more (not a good thing if you worry about over population, were pretty much there already).


BooZker

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I believe just like anything it should be alowed with restrictions. Here are two situations where I think it should be and not be allowed. The first is the one that should not be allowed:Jim (made up person) wants a child. He has never had one before. He is not married, nor does he have a girl friend or boy friend. The option of cloning is available now. Jim goes down to the cloning plant and they tell him for a price they can make him a boy or a girl. It can have any qualites he likes. They also can all be perfect. They will not die from genetic disease. So they make him a child.To understand why I think this should not be allowed read the one i think should be allowed:Jim and Jane have a child named Jake. Jake is a good kid but has his flaws. He was born into the world. One day he was out on his bike and got hit by a car. He was only 10. The parents were in shock and knew about cloning. They didn't agree with it at first, but when people loose kids they do things they thought the wouldn't. They go down to the plant and the cloning doctors tell them they can make him again. He will grow up the exact same. He will look the same and probably like some of the same things. They can make him perfect, but it is against the law. So in the end they decide to go with it and clone Jake. Jake grew up a normal boy.--I believe that in some cases it would be OK. As in the matter of the second example the family already had a child and lossed him when he was only ten. What is wrong with making a child again when he or she was already on this planet and when they cloned him or her they were the same. This includes the same flaws. I do not think that when someone just wants a kid they can go in there and make him or her perfect. Maybe it would be fine if they only had one kid, but could only have them so good at one thing. I don't know, but i think it should not be completely banned.So my point? Do not make people if they weren't already here. If they were here and died in a freak accident it should be approved and they must be the same with the same flaws and personality. I do not think they can make the same personality anyways, because some of you personality is made from where you grew up and with who.


mpinsky

How would they know that Jake's clone would have the same likes and dislikes? These things are not in your genetic code. Instead, these and other such things are aquired tastes, not traits. It is not something that can be controlled Also, why clone Jake if they can just have another child and save money? Jake was a unique being, why clone him if you can have another unique child naturally?


Arbitrary

I was thinking more along the lines of changes that help prevent/protect against or completely remove common/well known diseases, virus's etc.

Hmm, but I'd say that's where the problem stems. Yes, our wishes are good in that we're hoping to help the general population, but they turn bad. Like I mentioned earlier about the rich and the poor, the rich will have easy access to these medicines, but the poor will not. The same problem is already happening today--a number of people in the poorer countries are unable to vaccinate their children. This problem will exacerbate as our technology gets better--the rich will become healthier and healthier, while the poor become less healthy (this is all relative). Eventually, the determining factors of evolution will no longer be genes but money. The more money you have, the more likely you'll survive.

But of course I know the ideal is a good thing, even if population-control could be a problem. :D

lonebyrd

The high price that would come along with cloning would be a major problem. Imagine, the rich people, being able to clone the perfect baby, no flaws (or very little) able to withstand most diseases and illnesses. This child will grow up to be an extremely high productive member of society, taking the best jobs, the high pay. Meanwhile, the poor, middle-class will not be able to afford such a luxury as cloning, therefore, getting the lower paying jobs. As time goes by, the economy will shift, leaving the poor/middle-class in the dust, inducing poverty in many places, while the 'well-to-do' will have many advantages. This is how I see it in how I see it in America. I know nothing of other countries govenments. But in America, the govenment would end up making it easier on the upper-class, and harder for lower and middle-class. That is always the way it is.


BooZker

How would they know that Jake's clone would have the same likes and dislikes? These things are not in your genetic code. Instead, these and other such things are aquired tastes, not traits. It is not something that can be controlled Also, why clone Jake if they can just have another child and save money? Jake was a unique being, why clone him if you can have another unique child naturally?

The likes and dislikes are not in the code itself, but let's say you were really good at playing the drums. Most likely you will like to play them because you have no trouble playing them. Maybe he would not like playing the drums because he is not good at them and finds them too hard. This is just an IF and nothing more. It was just an example.

Why wouldn't you clone the child that was with you for over ten years? He would look exactly the same and has a chance to act close to the same as before. Not exactly, but close. The other part of that example was in some cases i think it would be ok and others a for sure NO. The clone will be unique anyways. It will not be exactly the same. No matter how much you modify the genes he will grow up different because of different things that will happen such as someone in the family dying and would make him more mature. This is just another example.

lonebyrd

Since this is all hypothetical anyway, what do we really know what would and what wouldn't be carried on in a human clone? Yes, to some extent, what happens in everyday life will effect what will happen, but who's to say that likes and dislikes won't come from something, say, in the brain, the genetic code. I don't know alot of anything about genetics, as people can probably tell from my posts, but there is so much unknowns about human cloning (at least that I know of) that I'm sure it would be a guessing game at first anyway.


mpinsky

Since this is all hypothetical anyway, what do we really know what would and what wouldn't be carried on in a human clone? Yes, to some extent, what happens in everyday life will effect what will happen, but who's to say that likes and dislikes won't come from something, say, in the brain, the genetic code. I don't know alot of anything about genetics, as people can probably tell from my posts, but there is so much unknowns about human cloning (at least that I know of) that I'm sure it would be a guessing game at first anyway.


Yes, you are quite right, there, Lonebyrd. Likes and dislikes are not carried in the genetic code, but rather developed as the organsim in question grows older. For example, I am the only one in my immediate family (besides my brother) who does not like the taste of olives. Both my brother and I are from the same parents, but we don't like the same things our parents do.

Again, this is what makes any particular organism unique because it develops who they are. Cloning, on the other hand, wouldn't really eliminate this. Your clone may very well like green peas while you yourself do not. It's just like how a perfectly normal couple's child turns out to be a serial killer. These things aren't genetic.

Arbitrary

Again, this is what makes any particular organism unique because it develops who they are. Cloning, on the other hand, wouldn't really eliminate this. Your clone may very well like green peas while you yourself do not. It's just like how a perfectly normal couple's child turns out to be a serial killer. These things aren't genetic.

Well, there's obviously the environment factor to be taken into consideration in all of these--people say that there may be genes causing a person to lean toward sociopathic behavior, but whether or not that person becomes a serial killer depends on their environment. So I guess genes can determine inclinations, but not absolutes. (No one's sure about this though...not even the researchers. :D)
I don't think anyone knows if likes or dislikes are carried out by genes, no one has done enough research in the area to know whether or not it's true. Genes could be so very complicated that they set a timer that at one point in your life your like/dislike of a certain thing will change. But of course, that's all hypothetical.

cyborgxxi

Personally I think your likes and dislikes are very much related to your enviroment and raising rather than genes. Would a clone who was raised in a dirt poor town who had to beg to survive end up the same as a kid raised in the richest neighborhood and eating at his leisure. Would they both like the same entertainment? I doubt it because entertainment the rich child could afford and enjoy the poor clone would never even dream of. Would they like the same foods even if the poor clone ate out of a trash can and the rich child ate banquets every meal? Now this is a very extreme case but it is just to demonstrate how the different lifestyles would effect their likes/dislikes. Maybe I'm wrong and perhaps they would somehow like the same things and enjoy doing the same activities but I doubt it.My humble opinion,Cyborgxxi


mpinsky

Personally I think your likes and dislikes are very much related to your enviroment and raising rather than genes.

Very true, I know this as a fact as my upbringing was quite different than what my friends' were and they definitely do not like the same smells that I do when it comes to cooking.

 

Because Judaism is a religion that originally orginated in the Middle East, a lot of the foods we cook at Channukkah, such as latkes, involved using oil for frying things, such as onions for example. One particular friend came over and absolutely hated the smell and asked if I could smell it as well. While the answer was yes, technically I could, I had gotten so used to it that the smell didn't even register any more.

 

Another one of my friends was brought up less priviledged than I was and so her whole family became very modest when giving us a tour of their new house.

 

Then again, things can go wrong, or you get an oddball of the bunch (so to speak), and then the type of upbringing they had has no particular effect on them.

 

I do know for a fact, though, that certain traits, such as being left-handed or right-handed, are genetically related.


iGuest

Replying to mpinskyAmen to that! it's wrong to try to create perfection. We must learn from our mistakes, not create a literally new 'us' that doesn't even make mistakes! not only that, but it would be kinda creepy running into a clone of yourself when you're 30 but your clone is 5... Total unnatural deja vu!-reply by Kirstin

Haydn

no,clones cant b used as perfct humans. they dont hv their own identity. If human A is cloned, A Prime will be fomed. A Pime will look exactly like human A, n a conflict migh happen! I disagree!