PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on cloning


The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 06:53 PM
I was wondering what you'll might think on cloning. For those of you who don't know it's real. The first animal to be cloned was a sheep name Dolly. Any way what if we got cloned what would you tell your clone to do, do you think it will betray you. So discuss. It would be good to clone if you were about to die and needed another organ. You could get it from your clone.

Black_Wolf
December 5th, 2007, 06:55 PM
I was wondering what you'll might think on cloning. For those of you who don't know it's real. The first animal to be cloned was a sheep name:Dolly. Any way what if we got cloned what would you tell your clone to do, do you think it will betray you. So discuss. It would be good to clone if you were about to die and needed another organ. You could get it from your clone.

An army consisting of only me and a bunch of other me... World domination, here I come.

Live in Color
December 5th, 2007, 07:05 PM
I actually think cloning is wrong, because so many things can go wrong during the process. It also makes a duplicate of you, and you're no longer different than anybody else anymore.

The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 07:06 PM
Out off topic:Why is that smily face thing there I didn't put it there.

22sa
December 5th, 2007, 07:06 PM
I like it. I'd be allowed to kill my clones without being accused of murder.

Edit: Just edit it out

That face is made by typing a : & a D together

Live in Color
December 5th, 2007, 07:08 PM
Out off topic:Why is that smily face thing there I didn't put it there.

Because you typed something with a colon then capital letter. And if you put ": D" then that would make it Dolly, wasn't the first sheep cloned named Molly?

The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 07:10 PM
Okay it's fixed. It costs like a million dollars to get one clone. That's a lot.

Wasn't the first sheep cloned named molly

I don't know, some thing with olly.

Souless
December 5th, 2007, 07:10 PM
I would like to clone myself, that way I will be able to suicide without dying in the process xD

No, now seriously, what would be the object of cloning? even if it's is phisically exactly like you it wouldn't have the same personality, and he could kill me to get my identity *Souless, you should stop seeing TV for a while man...* and besides, if it does obey me, what could I put him to do?

The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 07:13 PM
You could tell him to go to school for you.

22sa
December 5th, 2007, 07:16 PM
You could tell him to go to school for you.
LOL$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Nah, he can stay home and do the chores.

The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Or he can go to work for you (job).

Black_Wolf
December 5th, 2007, 07:17 PM
Am I really the only one that is crazy enough to make a... CLONE ARMY!!!!!

The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 07:18 PM
I would if I had a dectillion dollars (real number)

Ayano Katagiri
December 5th, 2007, 07:19 PM
But what if you couldn't control your clones. And they try to get back at you and kill you instead?

Black_Wolf
December 5th, 2007, 07:20 PM
But what if you couldn't control your clones. And they try to get back at you and kill you instead?

How would they know which me is me?

The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 07:20 PM
Then kill him first, or run as fast as you can.

Ayano Katagiri
December 5th, 2007, 07:21 PM
How would they know wich me is me?

Um, you're the one trying to boss them round to do your bidding.

Black_Wolf
December 5th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Um, you're the one trying to boss them round to do your bidding.

what if it's a clone I ordered to act like me?

22sa
December 5th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Am I really the only one that is crazy enough to make a... CLONE ARMY!!!!!
lol Agent Smith.

I would but there's a money problem. 1 million yous = $1 trillion to make. XD

Hmm, $500 billion to purchase an army of 500 000. Not too bad actually.

The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 07:25 PM
Where in the world would you get all that money, the bank I don't think so.

Ayano Katagiri
December 5th, 2007, 07:26 PM
what if it's a clone I ordered to act like me?
That clone would presumably die as well and each one will be hunted down by the collective group of anti-"single oppressor" clones.

Just a weird thought, how would everyone feel if one day they woke up and were told by freaky scientists that they were actually a clone of someone else and your services as this person were no longer needed?

Black_Wolf
December 5th, 2007, 07:29 PM
lol Agent Smith.

I would but there's a money problem. 1 million yous = $1 trillion to make. XD

Hmm, $500 billion to purchase an army of 500 000. Not too bad actually.

Why pay money? I could take the Labs by force, And threaten the scientists to clone me. Once I have at least a force of 100,000, I will clone the scientists, deprive them of any freewill, then get rid of the originals and have them continue making my army. So one day, you will be vowing down to me.

The Shadow
December 5th, 2007, 07:31 PM
To Flavaquil: I would scream my butt of and kill the scientist.

22sa
December 5th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Why pay money? I could take the Labs by force, And threaten the scientists to clone me. Once I have at least a force of 100,000, I will clone the scientists, deprive them of any freewill, then get rid of the originals and have them continue making my army. So one day, you will be vowing down to me.
Ahh, I love Agent Smith.

Well, I'm sure those scientists need that money to buy the materials and run their facilities though. XD

Jordan
December 5th, 2007, 07:43 PM
I do not believe in cloning perfect replica of any single organisms. I believe in free thoughts and the ability to live as an individual, not serve a single purpose for existence but a versatile future. Hey, I do not want to wake up and find out that I am but a reserve copy of an already existing human, so why do it to something else?

Jordan.

P.S.: End of goody-goody rant.

Black_Wolf
December 5th, 2007, 07:44 PM
Ahh, I love Agent Smith.

Well, I'm sure those scientists need that money to buy the materials and run their facilities though. XD

The Corps doesn't pay me by the hour! I would not be able to pay for an Army, maybe a squad, but not an Army.

Allstories
December 5th, 2007, 08:27 PM
wasn't the first sheep cloned named Molly?

No, it was Dolly.

ANYWAY, you can't have a clone that will do your homework or be your slave or something because clones still have to be born. You can't have an instant clone. Cloning isn't really all that different from in-vitro fertilization or having a twin. Get your stuff straight, people.

Black_Wolf
December 5th, 2007, 09:02 PM
No, it was Dolly.

ANYWAY, you can't have a clone that will do your homework or be your slave or something because clones still have to be born. You can't have an instant clone. Cloning isn't really all that different from in-vitro fertilization or having a twin. Get your stuff straight, people.

Sounds like someone never saw Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The clones.

Gerri Shin
December 5th, 2007, 09:27 PM
the way I see it, a clone is only a copy of your physical being. It may have the same DNA and look exactly like you, but its behavior and personality could be totally diferent. Its the experiences you have as you grow up, or in this case the experiences the Clone has as he grows up, that makes people who they are. experiance shapes the way we think, act, make decisions, and react. so while you may look alike, you and your clone could be totally different. Its like a sibling, except that you don't have the exact same DNA configuration, you still have the same two DNA combination, you still behave different and act different. as far as I know there is not a way to grow adults in some sort of Harvesting Facility like in the Matrix.

txteclipse
December 5th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Cloning humans is rather disturbing to me, actually. Tampering with DNA is a no-go, as far as I'm concerned.

Let me put it in the words of a favorite quote of mine: "Scientists are so busy worrying about how to do things that they don't have enough time to worry about if they should be doing them."

Gerri Shin
December 5th, 2007, 09:46 PM
o wow, oops I gave that whole long view of cloning, but forgot to mention whether I'm for or against it. I'm against it, theres really no point in it. sure it has its perks like extra organs, but a thinking breathing human has a soul. even a clone has a soul, they have to be born, God has to give life to it or else its just an empty shell walking around without purpose. what kind of life would that be. are we that cruel, a soceity to create a being whose only purpose is to provide organs? I don't think so, I believe that scientists should put more effort into finding ways to make new and innovative prosthetics. I'd live happier knowing that I had a machine inside me instead of an organ they killed a living, conscience being to get.

txteclipse
December 5th, 2007, 10:04 PM
I'd be happy just knowing one of my organs was a machine, lol.

That would be so awesome...

Jaimes
December 6th, 2007, 12:22 AM
Judging by a load of dumb responses, it would seem that a lot of people know nothing about cloning ¬_¬


A identical twin is a 'clone' as are any organisms produced asexually.
Clones of animals can be used to prevent specie extinction.
Clones reduce the gene pool so advantageous alleles can be kept. (e.g you could have a load of super cows) and defected genes can be removed (like haemophilia genes)
Cloning of tissues is used for reconstructive surgery.
Cloning is already used in stem cell research which can be used for repairing/rebuilding/making new tissues or organs in sick patients.
Cloning of bone marrow to produce RBCs for kids with leukemia
Cloning of one persons genes can provide a child for an infertile couple.


If you think it's 'wrong' to copy a lump of cells to save a human life or aid medical progresson..then frankly you suck.

MegamanC
December 6th, 2007, 12:22 AM
Cloning? I'd probably wouldn't clone myself...but my idea would probably not be suitable for some of those on this forums... *Wink wink*

- MegamanC

Allen-kun
December 6th, 2007, 02:58 AM
I would hate to be cloned.

Because then I wouldn't be unique anymore and I'd think of my clone as a cheap version of myself who shouldn't belong in this world.

But cloning for organs and whatnot is a good idea, since some people have special blood types and finding a donor is hard.

Live in Color
December 6th, 2007, 04:25 AM
Dolly the sheep, who became famous as the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell, has died.

The news was confirmed on Friday by the Roslin Institute, the Scottish research centre which created her.

A decision was taken to "euthanase" six-year-old Dolly after a veterinary examination showed that she had a progressive lung disease, the institute said in a statement.

Dolly died in February 2003. She was a 6 year old sheep.

Perhaps there are bad things that come out of cloning. Not a long lifespan, higher rate of catching disease, etc.

Jaimes
December 6th, 2007, 04:50 AM
Dolly died in February 2003. She was a 6 year old sheep.

Perhaps there are bad things that come out of cloning. Not a long lifespan, higher rate of catching disease, etc.

Dolly was also put down because it had a disease common in sheep. Being a clone did not kill it ¬_¬

As a matter of fact cloning does not 'shorten a lifespan' or increase the chance of catching a disease. Just because it's made artificially doesn't make it 'not a real animal'. Clones have exactly the same genes as its parent & will genetically have the same likelihood of developing an illness if both are raised/treated identically. Well done for typing made-up rubbish.

By your logic, you might as well say that all identical twins & in-vitro born people are more likely to be sick and are going to die earlier? Nice. ¬_¬

The Shadow
December 6th, 2007, 01:01 PM
This one lady wanted her dog cloned because it was sick and about to die. The lady was rich though.

PB
December 6th, 2007, 01:27 PM
As long as the animal that is having DNA extracted doesnt get hurt, Cloning doesnt really bother me

Wish
December 6th, 2007, 01:48 PM
I did a debate for this a few months ago, I was for it, and I won.

This could be vital for medical research and help people with organ transplants. It could work. It would take a LOT of money and years to create a mass army of clones to use for evil purposes anyway, so why not? Some clones are headless. So technically speaking, they were never alive. They were just a shell with organs that could be used to save a life.

I mean, we've done it before to animals, Such as sheep. Although however, it would not be the same as the actual thing. Like some Stephen King story. The boy got killed, they cloned him, and his clone was now evil. So I wouldn't be supporting clones for entertainment purposes, but for solely medical purposes. This could help save lives ad help doctors to become better, being nothing but good to our world.

Happy Dude
December 7th, 2007, 01:38 AM
Alot of silly posts in this thread I see "Oh lolz itd be kewl to have a copi of miself nstuff"

But in all seriousness I think the positives out-weigh the negatives a lot. We can potentially save lifes by cloning cells. I seriously don't see why people would be against it.

Sure it is Immoral to some (Some people will always think that For reasons I do not understand) But Like I said before I feel that the positives out-weigh the Negatives and there is a lot of potential in cloning.

The Shadow
December 7th, 2007, 01:18 PM
From now on any post such as kewl I wud clone mi self and destroy evrybody or anything like that is unecceptable. Thanks Happy Dude. And when we clone our clone lives forever it can't die.

Blastoise
December 7th, 2007, 02:09 PM
Cloning opens up a wide variety of possibilities for organ donation; I'm not talking about cloning whole organisms here, but rather, simply cloning single organs for this purpose. If it can be made to be a cheap and quick process, many lives could be saved.

The Shadow
December 7th, 2007, 02:37 PM
I would say that for one organ would be around $300. That's probably why people do fund raisers to support hospitals.

destinedjagold
December 7th, 2007, 03:56 PM
cloning may be good, so if we die.., we can still continue our lives, however, cloning may copy ourselves completely, but it can't copy our soul. If we die, then we are dead, and we can't just simply *Ahh.., my clone~... Come to me~... It's time I take your place~... Whooo~*.., or maybe we can do that, since a clone has no spirit. *Confused*

Jaimes
December 7th, 2007, 04:18 PM
Seriously these responses are still getting stupid. Does anyone here actually know what cloning is? :S

A clone is not a copy of someone
A clone is not a brainless individual that can be ordered around.
A clone is not an 'extra life'
A clone doesn't live for ever or live less than another individual.
And don't even get me started on that 'spirit/soul' rubbish..

A clone IS an individual. A clone is another organism with identical genes. Compare identical twins/triplets - these are natural clones. It's not as if one is brainless, can't think for itself or doesn't live.


Think of a clone being like a close sibling if anything...instead of some sort of zombie ¬_¬

The Shadow
December 7th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Seriously these responses are still getting stupid. Does anyone here actually know what cloning is? :S

A clone is not a copy of someone
A clone is not a brainless individual that can be ordered around.
A clone is not an 'extra life'
A clone doesn't live for ever or live less than another individual.
And don't even get me started on that 'spirit/soul' rubbish..

A clone IS an individual. A clone is another organism with identical genes. Compare identical twins/triplets - these are natural clones. It's not as if one is brainless, can't think for itself or doesn't live.


Think of a clone being like a close sibling if anything...instead of some sort of zombie ¬_¬

Quoted for truth.

A clone can be a smart person. Probably a smarter person than you if you were cloned.

Jordan
December 7th, 2007, 05:38 PM
Cloning of one persons genes can provide a child for an infertile couple.


Yet, evolution (to adapt by changing, not necessarily into another species) are better suited with variation of genes, not exact copies. Asexually reproduced organisms tend to grow quickly, and hence, die quickly (it is better to have not loved at all than to have love and lost I always say.) Plus, say you clone the genes of the father to make a child, once he is a teenager, he will look exactly like his father, which would cause some awkward moments.

Though cloning organs to save lives are okay in my opinions.

Jordan.

latioslegends
December 7th, 2007, 05:41 PM
I sort of despise cloning (Just something to do with my religon when I think about it).

The Shadow
December 7th, 2007, 05:55 PM
Clonings not a sin. Never since I checked.

Jaimes
December 7th, 2007, 06:09 PM
Yet, evolution (to adapt by changing, not necessarily into another species) are better suited with variation of genes, not exact copies. Asexually reproduced organisms tend to grow quickly, and hence, die quickly (it is better to have not loved at all than to have love and lost I always say.) Plus, say you clone the genes of the father to make a child, once he is a teenager, he will look exactly like his father, which would cause some awkward moments.


I'm going to credit you there, because if you really are 13, then you just made a very sensible and scientifically evaluated response. Hats off to you there.
Firstly though, in terms of creating genetic variation, theres not really much difference due to the human control to withstand changes off the environment.
Theoretically a clone of a working gamete is what would be beneficial- the success rate of in vitro is rather low, but by taking 2 male & female gametes and making multiple clones, the likelihood would be virtually guaranteed.
You could clone a genetic copy of an adult as well, but there would probably be a 20 odd year age gap to go with it. Some people might want that, if they think that their genes are so great (but are still single).

latioslegends
December 7th, 2007, 06:10 PM
It ain't a sin. I am just saying that creating life like this just does not feel right to me.

The Shadow
December 7th, 2007, 06:13 PM
Then why did you post in the first place. Well never mind.

Edit:I have now made a poll

Merzbau
December 7th, 2007, 07:39 PM
Cloning could be useful if we worked out the moral bugs.

If scientists could grow singular organs in a lab somehow, I would be wonderfully in support of that, though.

Way more useful and less morally wrong, than cloning.

The Shadow
December 8th, 2007, 07:45 AM
Can clones reproduce. Just a question.

Nuke
December 8th, 2007, 07:47 AM
I was wondering what you'll might think on cloning. For those of you who don't know it's real. The first animal to be cloned was a sheep name Dolly. Any way what if we got cloned what would you tell your clone to do, do you think it will betray you. So discuss. It would be good to clone if you were about to die and needed another organ. You could get it from your clone.

Wow? Cloning exists?

I've always wanted cloning even over time travel.

The Shadow
December 8th, 2007, 07:49 AM
You didn't know that. Where have you been.

Jordan
December 8th, 2007, 08:19 AM
I'm going to credit you there, because if you really are 13, then you just made a very sensible and scientifically evaluated response. Hats off to you there.
Firstly though, in terms of creating genetic variation, theres not really much difference due to the human control to withstand changes off the environment.
Theoretically a clone of a working gamete is what would be beneficial- the success rate of in vitro is rather low, but by taking 2 male & female gametes and making multiple clones, the likelihood would be virtually guaranteed.
You could clone a genetic copy of an adult as well, but there would probably be a 20 odd year age gap to go with it. Some people might want that, if they think that their genes are so great (but are still single).
I will reply each sentences by sections.
1)I suppose you are right about humans' ability to withstand the environment, though a little difference is still a difference :\.
2)It would be nice if the actions in bold can be administered, though it would not be an exact clone as implied at the beginning of the thread now would it?
3)A mutated gene that causes slow growth may solve the 20 age gap (just appearance, not counting on enhanced longevity, plus mutation is rare.)

Jordan.

P.S.: I am 13 but my 14th birthday is coming up on the 30th.

Gummy
December 8th, 2007, 08:32 AM
Not sure if this was said before but wouldn't cloning stop evolution? With no reproduction, you're using the same genes over and over again. The clone will have the same immunities, allergies, etc, as the original.

P.S.: I am 13 but my 14th birthday is coming up on the 30th.

I'll be here to wish you a happy birthday.

wmoor0826
December 8th, 2007, 09:37 AM
How would they know which me is me?

How would YOU know which you is you?

Jessie
December 8th, 2007, 09:47 AM
In my humble opinion I think cloning absolutely the STUPIDEST thing ever. First off, I love and own horses. I know that a few years ago a "champion" horse was cloned just so the owner could breed it. I went on a huge rant and wrote the owner of the cloned horse and several horse magazines. Why in the world would you want to scientifically create another horse? There are so many wonderful abused horses than need to be rescued. What about the poor animals that sit in small pens all day. Make one of THESE horses a champion. Instead of creating new life we need to save the ones we already have. I dread the day we start cloning humans. That will absolutely draw the line for me. Can you imagine the feeling of knowing you were cloned from someone else? That you don't have any REAL family? It would be awful. I feel the same way about couples that can't have a baby and keep trying...like, freezing eggs and whatnot. I know that they want their own child but after a few years of trying why not just adopt. Remember, all of this is my opinion and I fully respect everyone elses'. :)

Jaimes
December 8th, 2007, 09:53 AM
2)It would be nice if the actions in bold can be administered, though it would not be an exact clone as implied at the beginning of the thread now would it?
3)A mutated gene that causes slow growth may solve the 20 age gap (just appearance, not counting on enhanced longevity, plus mutation is rare.)


For, 2) It depends on what aspect of cloning you're thinking about - from a biological perceptive cloning would consist of identical genes (whether being a whole individual or just a lump of cells).
If you cloned a single gamete then statistically 50% of the offspring would be identical (they would be half-identical twins).
If you were to clone a zygote, x amount of times, (which was my proposed use) then this is effectively has the possibility of x identical offspring. This is what is being considered for use as fertility treatment, to increase the chances of a child made in-vitro.

Some people may want a full copy of themselves, and this is possible. But that wasn't the same type cloning that I was referring to that could benefit infertility.

For 3) - if a clone had a mutated gene...then so would the parent.. Natural genetic mutations occur inside the parent's parents. If you added the gene in, then it wouldn't be a clone anymore, because the genetic code would be different. Also it would have a significant number of other effects.

Ya happy birthday too b('-')b

Can clones reproduce. Just a question.
A clone is still an individual. If the parent where the genes came from can reproduce sexually, then so can the clone.

Jessie
December 8th, 2007, 09:55 AM
Clones of animals can be used to prevent specie extinction.
You have a very good point. IF they're cloning very rare animals to save them THAT would be great. But horses, rats and sheep? We have enough of them...

Jaimes
December 8th, 2007, 10:08 AM
You have a very good point. IF they're cloning very rare animals to save them THAT would be great. But horses, rats and sheep? We have enough of them...

Endangered animals ARE cloned. As are endangered plants.

Horses & cows are cloned because they have desired genes. Think about it, there are animals that are naturally better than its own kind. Champion horses are better runners, some cows produce better milk- they have the genes inside them that cause this.
If say, 5 clones of the greatest running horse was made, then each could be sent of to different areas of the worl. They would pass on their genes to lots of different offspring- each with the running gene and in turn these would be fast runners. This is simply artificial selection but clones are made so that it can occur faster.

Rats are rarely cloned. Rats are used since they breed fast, are small, clean and easy to handle. That's why they've been used for research.
A sheep is a more complex mammal and again was used for research purposes. Appearence wise they're also easy to distinguish if cloning was successful.

I'd also like to point out that cloning animals is harmless. (Besides that one animal of a specie will have to give birth to it).

Jessie
December 8th, 2007, 11:04 AM
Horses & cows are cloned because they have desired genes. Think about it, there are animals that are naturally better than its own kind. Champion horses are better runners, some cows produce better milk- they have the genes inside them that cause this.
If say, 5 clones of the greatest running horse was made, then each could be sent of to different areas of the worl. They would pass on their genes to lots of different offspring- each with the running gene and in turn these would be fast runners. This is simply artificial selection but clones are made so that it can occur faster.

I would like to point out that VERY many horse people are still against this. There are just too many unwanted foals out there now. If you go over to a horse forum and talk about this very touchy subject you will get many different answers. No matter what genes or how fast the horse can run if someone breeds their stallion irresponsibly that foal could have a horrible life. You really have to think these things through. Horses can life 30+ years. Most of these people in the racing business start their horses way too soon under saddle and run them to death. Granted, there are some very kind people in the horse racing business and I've met a few, but some people just disgust me. If a horse is lucky it could go on to race until it's about 7, but most horses only last until they're 3 or 4. After that the irresponsible racers will just throw the horses away, send them to the slaughter house, just to make room for another foal. I am the proud owner of a 23 year old rescued ex-racer. He has horrible joints from racing and is still spooky. In my opinion it's just not worth it.

The Shadow
December 9th, 2007, 04:42 PM
If only they cloned the dodo before it got extinct. They didn't have cloning back then so never mind.

scorpyo
December 9th, 2007, 06:32 PM
Cloning is definetly morally wrong. Do we seriously NEED to steal the rights of (sorry about bringing up religion) God to create life? It's just not dang right. And what the heck is the point of it? Just because it's cool to have a clone of yourself? If a human is cloned, will the even have a soul to live an afterlife? It's not right. It's just as bad as AI. Seriously, don't get me started on it. I am totally aagainst thinking computers and robots that can think and have thoughts like humans. But anyways, I didn't read the whole thread, so I might have brought up something already said or something.

Allstories
December 9th, 2007, 06:46 PM
It's not like creating a robot, though. It still has to be born, and it's a process comparable to the way nature creates twins. I wouldn't say it's really playing god. Read the rest of this thread.

Amachi
December 9th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Considering that half of the thread is useless, that might be less useful than hoped.

Anyway, I have mixed views on cloning. If it can be used to help people, then I'm all for it. But, I consider the cloning of a human, at the very least, morally wrong,a nd even more so ethically, though I suppose it depends on the purpose.

For example, let's say cloning was done to create reserve organs for individuals (now what happened to Krypton guys? XD). The fact taht the clone has no other purpose other than being a personal organ bank does raise numerous moral questions, since the clone is being denied it's rights as a human. We can see this example being played out today though, such as in the situation where a child is suffering from leukemia, and so the parents have another child so that it can donate bone marrow for their sibling.

But all in all, no one would create a clone just for the sake of having one - there is an ulterior motive behind it, and that's where it's more likely for moral questions to be raised, let alone ethical.

Endangered animals ARE cloned. As are endangered plants.
Cloning is a last ditch effort after alternatives (such as conservation, protection and the like), have been exhausted. Moreover, they would still be used in conjunction with cloning for the best results.

Horses & cows are cloned because they have desired genes. Think about it, there are animals that are naturally better than its own kind. Champion horses are better runners, some cows produce better milk- they have the genes inside them that cause this.
If say, 5 clones of the greatest running horse was made, then each could be sent of to different areas of the worl. They would pass on their genes to lots of different offspring- each with the running gene and in turn these would be fast runners. This is simply artificial selection but clones are made so that it can occur faster.
Yet even with the advent of genetic engineering, farmers still use classic selective breeding techniques, as do breeders. I actually don't really see cloning making much of an impact in these areas anyway.

If anything, cloning prized animals would reduce their "value", and everyone is in it for the money.

Jaimes
December 10th, 2007, 03:25 AM
Cloning is definetly morally wrong. Do we seriously NEED to steal the rights of (sorry about bringing up religion) God to create life? It's just not dang right. And what the heck is the point of it? Just because it's cool to have a clone of yourself? If a human is cloned, will the even have a soul to live an afterlife? It's not right. It's just as bad as AI. Seriously, don't get me started on it.
If you think that cloning is 'morally wrong' because the bible tells you then.. I am deeply worried and I believe you have a poor sense of morality. I suppose you reckon that stoning a rape victim who does not scream (Deut 22:24) is on the other hand, morally correct?
Although the Bible does not predict cloning, by the same logic, is mans interference of life is morally wrong as well? I suppose that also includes contraception, vaccination, antibiotics, organ transfer, grafting etc etc. ¬_¬
The majority of fruits and vegetables you consume are either cloned, propagated or have been influenced by humans...I guess they're evil too... XD
An identical twin is a clone- I guess they're not 'dang right' either. Also what is to say that God and a soul even exists? Never bring into a debate something that can't be proved and quote it as factual.
It would also be handy to read some earlier points beforehand as well ¬_¬.


The fact taht the clone has no other purpose other than being a personal organ bank does raise numerous moral questions, since the clone is being denied it's rights as a human.
A clone doesn't necessarily have to be an individual to be used as a medical breakthrough. Although it is too early to say, it is likely that from the research of stem cells, individual tissue or a stem cell (via activating certain genes) could be used to produce the desired tissues rather than producing a whole organism. From cloning certain cells, it is no different to tissue cultivation, except this way it guarantees that there will be no rejection of the implant and is safer.

Yet even with the advent of genetic engineering, farmers still use classic selective breeding techniques, as do breeders. I actually don't really see cloning making much of an impact in these areas anyway.
For selective breeding, I agree. Most animals already have desirable traits, without needing to lower the gene pool. It could be advantangeous if the are very very rare genes crop up or the organism has a short reproductive period.
Besides I think horseracing isn't very nice anyway ¬_¬

Cloning is a last ditch effort after alternatives (such as conservation, protection and the like), have been exhausted. Moreover, they would still be used in conjunction with cloning for the best results.
But it's a bit too late for some of the alternatives to be used effectively. Although it's not exactly great for variation, if for example, 1 clone of each panda was successfully made, (and these did as Panda's do) then that would significantly increase the numbers in a shorter time. Some animals are also unenthusiastic about reproducing, may not mate often or may have difficulty doing so- by cloning, the reproduction rate would increase rapidly.


Come to think about it..Nobody else has mentioned cloning of plants >.>
Bit suprising..seeming as this happens all the time..We even eat a lot of cloned produce..

Cross
December 10th, 2007, 10:37 AM
Cloning. lol
Probably one of the dumbest intelligent things man-kind could do.
If I had a clone made for me just for an organ when I was about to die, what would make the clone willing to give himself for me?
Another thing, it wouldn't be a clone. It would more likely be a "my physical resembling human being" or "man-created twin" since it would most likely have an alternate personality.

I await Richard Steel or Allstories to compliment on my cynicism.

the world would end up in utter confusion with two people being in a play and the other arives is sent backstage and is in the ply but only came to watch

ys it wuld m8 it wuld b uttr confushin wit al dem plys deyd hav wit clons an soch

thomascallaghan
December 10th, 2007, 11:21 AM
the world would end up in utter confusion with two people being in a play and the other arives is sent backstage and is in the ply but only came to watch

Amachi
December 10th, 2007, 11:40 AM
If you think that cloning is 'morally wrong' because the bible tells you then.. I am deeply worried and I believe you have a poor sense of morality. I suppose you reckon that stoning a rape victim who does not scream (Deut 22:24) is on the other hand, morally correct?
I believe you're talking about ethics, since they refer to one's beliefs. Morals are what one does.

Although the Bible does not predict cloning, by the same logic, is mans interference of life is morally wrong as well? I suppose that also includes contraception, vaccination, antibiotics, organ transfer, grafting etc etc. ¬_¬
That's the challenge facing today's religions, and they meet it well. Jewish bioethics is actually pretty interesting to study.

That said, contraception is wrong in the Christian church. But anything that can help people is essentially considered to be good. Don't think that the church really stuck in the mud.

Don't take my word for all this though, I've tried to forget as much as I've learnt from school as possible XD;;

For selective breeding, I agree. Most animals already have desirable traits, without needing to lower the gene pool. It could be advantangeous if the are very very rare genes crop up or the organism has a short reproductive period.
Besides I think horseracing isn't very nice anyway ¬_¬
I don't really see how it is so, since cloning doesn't really change anything about reproduction and such i.e. the reproductive period will still be the same.

But it's a bit too late for some of the alternatives to be used effectively. Although it's not exactly great for variation, if for example, 1 clone of each panda was successfully made, (and these did as Panda's do) then that would significantly increase the numbers in a shorter time. Some animals are also unenthusiastic about reproducing, may not mate often or may have difficulty doing so- by cloning, the reproduction rate would increase rapidly.
I suppose so, but even cloning has it's risks. By creating "copies" of the same animal, you're reducing the size of the gene pool, which may create issues in the future :/

thomascallaghan: I have no idea what you're on about, but do not go off topic like that again.

DarkGreg
December 10th, 2007, 12:17 PM
I think it would be a stupid idea. Mainly because I imagine some massive body builder guy would clone himself millions of times and destroy the world... :S

But, it can be used for good too. Like cloning an endangered species of animal. Maybe they use it in proportion. 8D

The Shadow
December 11th, 2007, 04:44 PM
Cloning is definetly morally wrong. Do we seriously NEED to steal the rights of (sorry about bringing up religion) God to create life? It's just not dang right. And what the heck is the point of it? Just because it's cool to have a clone of yourself? If a human is cloned, will the even have a soul to live an afterlife? It's not right. It's just as bad as AI. Seriously, don't get me started on it. I am totally aagainst thinking computers and robots that can think and have thoughts like humans. But anyways, I didn't read the whole thread, so I might have brought up something already said or something.

I haven't read the bottom posts so, any way. We have to clone endangered species or else they would die out. Cloning isn't a sin, so I don't know why you say that. Besides were not stealing Gods powers. Were just doing good to the environment.

Yingxue
December 12th, 2007, 12:31 PM
Unnecessary. We have enough people alive already.

We should use this technology to clone endangered species, not selfish people who want more of themselves.


And scorpyo, why are you so against AI? It's useful for everyday inventions that people use.