Community

The PokéCommunity

We are still working on a better slogan!

Visit Index



Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old July 29th, 2013, 03:04 AM
.:batto:.'s Avatar
.:batto:.
Pokébreeder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
"Dolly (5 July 1996 – 14 February 2003) was a female domestic sheep, and the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell, using the process of nuclear transfer.[2][3] She was cloned by Ian Wilmut, Keith Campbell and colleagues at the Roslin Institute and the biotechnology company PPL Therapeutics near Edinburgh in Scotland, the United Kingdom. The funding for Dolly's cloning was provided by PPL Therapeutics and the Ministry of Agriculture.[4] She was born on 5 July 1996 and she lived until the age of six, at which point she died from a progressive lung disease.[1] She has been called "the world's most famous sheep" by sources including BBC News and Scientific American.[5][6] The cell used as the donor for the cloning of Dolly was taken from a mammary gland, and the production of a healthy clone therefore proved that a cell taken from a specific part of the body could recreate a whole individual"

Scientists have cloned a number of mammals. Personally I think this is a very touchy/taboo subject. As many religious groups believe that it goes against god. I personally think that this could be great for reviving extinct animals. Such as the tasmanian tiger for example.
But that being said, Obviously something like this could be abused. Such as creating a "perfect" Humanoids. I would classify them as humanoid as they were not naturally born. So really they are artificial. But on the same page they aren't.

Quote:
We could start cloning people with the greatest minds or bodies to create a race of total perfection. One could clone a whole team of Michael Jordan's.... A large majority of the United States believed that the cloning and genetic modifications of animals should be closely regulated by the government. Human cloning seemed out of the question, as most people felt that it was wrong, as we would be "playing God."
It has been said that just because they have cloned dolly, (& a number of other mammals) That it wouldn't necessarily mean that they could clone an actual human. But really. What is the difference between one mammal and another? Like i said. They have cloned horses. Bulls. Ect.

IF You would like to read more on "Dolly" Click Here. That being said, Don't click if you don't want too, I'm not advertising or anything.

So what are your thoughts on cloning?
It was acceptable in Pokemon Gold & Silver. How about real life?
VS.
  #2    
Old July 29th, 2013, 03:28 AM
Magic's Avatar
Magic
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 23
Gender: Male
People often mistake cloning as the perfect way to resurrect extinct species, however it is practically useless with that regard.

To clone an animal you need viable DNA first, then you need a suitable 'mother' to implant the embryo into.

The mammoth-baby that was found in ice last year (maybe the year before?) encountered the first problem, even though the body was intact DNA is easily damaged and frozen specimens do not necessarily have perfect DNA. The other problem is then the mother - depending on the mammoth species, a mammoth baby may not be able to be carried by an elephant mother (the closest thing we have).

The Tasmanian Tiger, the thylacine, is such a beautiful animal. It's such a shame that we forced it to extinction. However, cloning cannot save it.

We could clone one, maybe several, from preserved specimens - but their sole purpose would be to live in zoos, etc., for the rest of their days. It is not viable to reclone a whole population - due to limited specimens (leading to very high inbreeding).

I do believe that cloning is morally acceptable, however, it is hard to come up with a good enough reasons to spend so much money and time doing it. Whether it will ever lead to human cloning, I'm highly doubtful - it reminds me of "The Island" - where rich people pay to have clones made in order to have perfect organs for transplants.
  #3    
Old July 29th, 2013, 03:51 AM
CarcharOdin's Avatar
CarcharOdin
Master of The Universe
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Monterey, California, USA
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Naughty
The problem with cloning is that whatever the subject is, you're using its cells to make a copy of the creature. An exact copy and that's what the problem is.

The issue with Dolly is that when they cloned her mother, they cloned her in her middle ages. Cells have repetitive nucleotide sequences called Telomeres, which are used for cell division. Every time cells replicate for various purposes (repairing cell damage, healing, etc) parts of the telomere are cut off and shortened. The result is that over time your cells become less and less effective at replicating and this leads to aging.

Hence the problem with Dolly. It was an exact copy of her mother, right down to her mother's middle-age telomeres. The result was a newborn sheep clone that would live only roughly half as long as a natural sheep.

Either a clone needs to be of a straight up newborn, it gets lucky and has lengthened telomeres, or we solve the problem by finding ways to lengthen telomeres. Of course, with that last option, do that and immortality has practically been achieved so why make clones?
CarcharOdin gets high on life to forget about drugs.
  #4    
Old July 29th, 2013, 03:56 AM
.:batto:.'s Avatar
.:batto:.
Pokébreeder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Valid Point. You need a host. & The procedure is very expensive. But if they could 'perfect' cloning, (as in being able to live a normal lifespan) why couldn't they reintroduce the Thylacine back into the wild. I couldn't see them being any more dangerous than the Dingo, Which I'm pretty sure is a sub species of a certain wolf. I don't think you could put a price on that. If were the ones that drove it to that fate, If we could fix it. I believe we should.

That made me laugh. The Island was a good movie. Would be pretty interesting to see multi billion dollar businesses cloning people to work for them or something.
Such as Apple making clones to use as customer service at there shops or something. hahaha.

Or creating some kind of super human with the brain of Albert Einstein. Who knows what the government really does anyways.
  #5    
Old July 29th, 2013, 04:12 AM
Limerent's Avatar
Limerent
I can hear you.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Hopefully we don't see human cloning, and yeah cloning extinct animals is nearly impossible, and pointless as SwiftSign said. If you freeze something in water all the liquid filled cells will expand and rupture, destroying DNA, like a tomato in the freezer. At least that's what I think I heard from Biology (not sure how cryogenics work). I find animal cloning acceptable but human cloning is a big no-no since we're self aware. How would you feel if you knew you were simply an exact replica of someone else? Would we start manufacturing humans for the strongest and smartest capabilities, like Storm Troopers in Star Wars? That seems morally wrong and dangerous to me for all sorts of reasons (reduces gene pool, individuality and human rights, etc)

A bigger concern for me is designer babies. It's not cloning, but in laymans terms when a woman wants to give birth scientists can take an embryo and switch on or off any part of the genetic code they like. This can decide our height, hair colour, eye colour, body type, intelligence, sporting ability, pretty much everything about us. Is it acceptable to choose what your baby should be for it or is it against nature/morals/gods will? Say being blonde and skinny with blue eyes became really popular, redheads, brown eyed people etc would become extinct. This is sort of like cloning, everyone will end up being extremely similar and we lose individuality. I think trying to do this is like creating a perfect race like Hitler and is not acceptable. But what about screening/genetic engineering for disabilities? We could get rid of severe mental and physical disabilities, people would be much happier right? Disabled people obviously disagree, stating it takes away a persons right to life. What do you think? I'd want at least screening of an embryo to stop any risk of things I perceive as a burden, like Downs, MS, Parkinsons etc. No need for a perfect child but I'd want to at least not disadvantage my kid, it'd be hard for me to raise someone who was disabled.

This post is going to be very controversial and I do sound a bit hypocritical by saying I don't want cloning/genetically engineering a perfect race but do want at least the option to prevent imperfections like disabilities. Oh well, I only posted because it's Batto's post and I like the guy.
Hi.
  #6    
Old July 29th, 2013, 04:56 AM
.:batto:.'s Avatar
.:batto:.
Pokébreeder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by O07_eleven View Post
But what about screening/genetic engineering for disabilities? We could get rid of severe mental and physical disabilities, people would be much happier right? Disabled people obviously disagree, stating it takes away a persons right to life. What do you think? I'd want at least screening of an embryo to stop any risk of things I perceive as a burden, like Downs, MS, Parkinsons etc. No need for a perfect child but I'd want to at least not disadvantage my kid, it'd be hard for me to raise someone who was disabled.

...I only posted because it's Batto's post and I like the guy.
BRAIN STORM.
It isn't necessarily cloning but thats a great point, Sure people with disabilities such as downs would disagree. Because really that is apart of what makes them who they are. I know i would be offended if i had Parkinsons disease & somebody asked me if i could would i change it. But i know for a fact, If i had a child and i had the option to relieve it of something like that i would in a heart beat.

007, You made me giggle. :')

But say for example, The Australian government wanted to bring the Tasmanian tiger back to the living, And for arguments sake it would all up cost $20,000
The news that an extinct animal is being brought back to life and you can come see this "once in a lifetime opportunity" for only $500. Only... 40..? people would have to show up and they have broken even. I think it would be worth every dollar to put some of the animals that we have killed off back onto this planet that we share, Im no hippy. But i think the Tazzie' tiger has just as much right to walk the land as we do. If it is even possible that being said, As with the damaged DNA & Such.
  #7    
Old July 29th, 2013, 05:09 AM
KriegStein's Avatar
KriegStein
Nuclear Reactor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Slowly Freezing Finland.
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Lonely
Well personally...I see a huge business about to rise. Just imagine the countless old ladies whould like "fido" back...even for a little while. Other than pet clones Im not saying much.

  #8    
Old July 29th, 2013, 08:29 AM
.:batto:.'s Avatar
.:batto:.
Pokébreeder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by KriegStein View Post
Well personally...I see a huge business about to rise. Just imagine the countless old ladies whould like "fido" back...even for a little while. Other than pet clones Im not saying much.
Exactly. it really could turn some profit. if it was made to work.
think about the countless billionaires that would pay whatever amount of cash was asked for to have a pet animal that lived millions of years ago. i personally would love a personal slave clone.
  #9    
Old July 29th, 2013, 08:55 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Cloning as an idea doesn't bother me. It's what you do, and how you do it that can be the problem. Like, say, rowing a new bladder from your own cells because yours was damaged and having a transplant would mean you'd have to be on drugs the rest of your life. No problem with that at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KriegStein View Post
Well personally...I see a huge business about to rise. Just imagine the countless old ladies whould like "fido" back...even for a little while. Other than pet clones Im not saying much.
That already exists. Somewhere in South Korea, I think. They'll clone your dead pet for a lot of money. I think it could run up to $100,000 or something crazy like that. Of course the process also leads to multiple clones, some of which have weird deformities, and sometimes none of them survive. That's the kind of thing which makes me not like cloning in this manner.

deviantart blog pair
  #10    
Old July 29th, 2013, 08:39 PM
Cassino's Avatar
Cassino
no
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Gender:
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Human cloning seemed out of the question, as most people felt that it was wrong, as we would be "playing God."
We have been 'playing god' since we were farmers. Human clones could be used for dangerous work, domestic servitude, medicine, warfare... and more, I'm sure. Whether or not this can be moral comes down to whether or not it assists in the survival of our species, and whether our leaders will eventually concede to serving the human condition instead of national interests (ergo 'warfare' ought not to be on the list, unless we encounter aliens on negative terms).
  #11    
Old July 29th, 2013, 09:33 PM
.:batto:.'s Avatar
.:batto:.
Pokébreeder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Define "farmers"
I don't think you could call using clones for medicine dangerous work. I think it would be wrong to use clones for medical reasons such as harvesting them for organs.
I think by the time that mass production of clones is a reality or possibility human soldiers won't be needed in wars. It will be just some kid at base pressing buttons.
  #12    
Old July 30th, 2013, 08:28 AM
Cassino's Avatar
Cassino
no
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Gender:
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:batto:. View Post
Define "farmers"
I don't think you could call using clones for medicine dangerous work. I think it would be wrong to use clones for medical reasons such as harvesting them for organs.
I think by the time that mass production of clones is a reality or possibility human soldiers won't be needed in wars. It will be just some kid at base pressing buttons.
Humans whom have formed static settlements and grow their food locally, as opposed to hunting and foraging for it. I'm referring to selective breeding.
I didn't mean to imply that dangerous work and medicine are related; I was thinking more of things like deep sea diving.
  #13    
Old July 30th, 2013, 09:19 AM
.:batto:.'s Avatar
.:batto:.
Pokébreeder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassino View Post
Humans whom have formed static settlements and grow their food locally, as opposed to hunting and foraging for it. I'm referring to selective breeding.
I didn't mean to imply that dangerous work and medicine are related; I was thinking more of things like deep sea diving.
I wouldn't really call farming "playing god" as there was farmers actually in the bible.
countless stories involved farmers. Or people that looked after live stock.

Ah yes, That is a good point. That would be very immoral to clone people solely for doing jobs that could potentially have them killed.
  #14    
Old August 10th, 2013, 05:39 PM
Cassino's Avatar
Cassino
no
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Gender:
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:batto:. View Post
I wouldn't really call farming "playing god" as there was farmers actually in the bible.
countless stories involved farmers. Or people that looked after live stock.
The issue of playing god arises from humans controlling the creation, destruction and direction of life; so goes my impression of it, at least. Given this, the selectively breeding farmers represent a godly degree of human dominion over life. My point is that playing god is an irrelevent matter to be concerned about since we have long been doing it at no apparent cost to our immortal souls or moral integrity or whatever*. The tangible concerns about cloning are whether it can be performed responsibly or not, and if it's even necessary and if so under what circumstances.

*Of course, the Chirstian story goes that Yahweh put all the creatures on Earth to be subservient to human needs (ie. the modern cow is thought necessary and reasonable, while cloning them is thought frivilous, I guess), but I don't take my impression from a particular religion's viewpoint, you understand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by .:batto:. View Post
Ah yes, That is a good point. That would be very immoral to clone people solely for doing jobs that could potentially have them killed.
That wasn't my point, just to clarify, in case you thought as much. Just trying to think of ways by which human clones might be useful enough to be worthwhile.

Last edited by Cassino; August 10th, 2013 at 06:06 PM.
  #15    
Old August 10th, 2013, 08:35 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
PumpkaBOO!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The States
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassino View Post
We have been 'playing god' since we were farmers. Human clones could be used for dangerous work, domestic servitude, medicine, warfare... and more, I'm sure. Whether or not this can be moral comes down to whether or not it assists in the survival of our species, and whether our leaders will eventually concede to serving the human condition instead of national interests (ergo 'warfare' ought not to be on the list, unless we encounter aliens on negative terms).
"Humans should not play God", I agree that when fully analyzed it is a specious proclamation.
So, what constitutes playing God?

I agree, farming, though we might not associate it with playing God indeed is! We are cultivating new species of plants and other biological species from unlocking the many mechanics involved with cross breeding and manipulation of external conditions in order to create fields fecund with customized vegetation (as we have been since farming began) For some, this concept being equated to "playing God, is unconfortable, since that term has needless negative connotations. We are of course built in the image of God, in that we are not completely animals in a spiritual sense. Man becomes more distinct from other organism as time progresses. From a romantic perspective religious or not, human's struggles with classification of humans. WE are essentially the X (not necessarily at the midpoint!): God(s)----X----Animals. God(s) being, the manipulators of the Earth whether destruction or creation/enhancement.

As well as these other institutions listed below, in order from least to most controversial in respect to the topic as far as the general public goes. Thus, they may associate cloning as playing God, but not government establishments.

Is it organized politics? We allow leaders to improve our lives by establishing laws and customs of which have been established over thousands of years of socialization. Since, political structures have allowed for civilizations to establish technology through sustainable living of which allows for individuals to not go out and hunt for food or worry about patents in order to create new technology, of which has promulgated the rapid population growth observed just in the past couple of centuries in comparison with an other time period. (wow that was a huge run-on sentence!)

Are medicines, simple and complex, extending the lives of people who would otherwise perish? In that instance are we playing God. Are we doing as a supreme being and/or nature has permitted?

How about growing new organs or organ donation (along with prosthetic)? These are not natural to the person receiving them. Is that defying nature?

We are playing God to an extent, which is great in SOME cases. As mentioned, are we creators or destructors? Well, both!

If the dinosaurs were intellectuals, they may have been able to avoid extinction. The reasons based on sentimentality should not thwart the progression of mankind. We are ensuring not only our survival, but our quality of life. If, and only if, this technology is used in a manner that does those two things, then why not? You make excellent points. What happens when we, as in, a few on our behalves, execute the wrong decisions for personal/national gains at the great expense of another?

I see cloning as something with unfathomable potential for good as well as bad. Thus, public oversight is necessary in this case. To those that are familiar with my viewpoints, I am not always a big advocate on public awareness or oversight, especially given some of the needless negative and specious arguments given that thwart human progression from an uninformed public. However, in this case, by making oversight a focus, it will force public and private institutions to avoid poor perceptions at all costs, and thus, demonstrate more acts of benevolence, or rather, creation as opposed to destruction.

I am all over the place tonight, so I hope this makes some sense. Though, I think I may have some logical gaps fo' sho'!
  #16    
Old August 10th, 2013, 08:45 PM
Zero°'s Avatar
Zero°
Mirai Nikki
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Send a message via Skype™ to Zero°
Instead of trying to clone species, I think it would be better to clone resources such as wood, metals, oil, etc. So that we don't run out of these resources in the future.

I understand trying to revive extinct species, but there's a reason such species are extinct. Mostly because they're not suitable to survive in the environments anymore and that's why species evolve.
  #17    
Old August 10th, 2013, 08:51 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
PumpkaBOO!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The States
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero° View Post
Instead of trying to clone species, I think it would be better to clone resources such as wood, metals, oil, etc. So that we don't run out of these resources in the future.
Or focus on a mixture of both resource manufacturing as well as biological studies (stem cells/cloning) if the goal is to improve the over quality of life across the board.

Agreed on your second point made in your edit!!! Revival of extinct species, in MOST cases, seems arbitrary and a waste of scientific exploration and costs (equipment, scientists, labs, ect.)
  #18    
Old August 10th, 2013, 11:08 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld
The Breaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New York
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
I think things like cloning, which haven't been thoroughly explored, should continue to be. The possibility of offending others shouldn't impede any scientific research.

Also, humans cannot do anything that doesn't fall within the laws of nature. Therefore it's impossible for humans to "play god" to begin with.
  #19    
Old August 11th, 2013, 12:52 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote:
Originally Posted by O07_eleven View Post
Hopefully we don't see human cloning
Why?

It's basically reproduction. Do you also hope to see the human race sterilized? For the record, I am hoping to have myself cloned at some point. I would like to have children at some point, and this method seems appealing to me. Considering it harms no one and brings new life into the world (as well as grants me progeny), I don't see what your issue is with it.

Quote:
A bigger concern for me is designer babies. It's not cloning, but in laymans terms when a woman wants to give birth scientists can take an embryo and switch on or off any part of the genetic code they like. This can decide our height, hair colour, eye colour, body type, intelligence, sporting ability, pretty much everything about us. Is it acceptable to choose what your baby should be for it or is it against nature/morals/gods will? Say being blonde and skinny with blue eyes became really popular, redheads, brown eyed people etc would become extinct. This is sort of like cloning, everyone will end up being extremely similar and we lose individuality. I think trying to do this is like creating a perfect race like Hitler and is not acceptable.
Why?

If appearance matters so little, if what matters is what is inside someone, not what is on the outside, then why do you take issue with parents choosing various things about how their children will look? Tell me, where is the harm in offering more choices to people?

Also, it's fine if you believe in "nature's will," or "God's will," but I don't. Written law is written by man, for man. As such, it should be secular; leave the domain of deities to those who worship them. And as there is nothing that seems morally wrong with the idea from any of the more common perspectives of morality (aside from the attempt to associate it with Hitler to avoid intelligent discussion on the topic), I see no reason why it should be verboten.

Quote:
But what about screening/genetic engineering for disabilities? We could get rid of severe mental and physical disabilities, people would be much happier right? Disabled people obviously disagree, stating it takes away a persons right to life. What do you think? I'd want at least screening of an embryo to stop any risk of things I perceive as a burden, like Downs, MS, Parkinsons etc. No need for a perfect child but I'd want to at least not disadvantage my kid, it'd be hard for me to raise someone who was disabled.
Considering there's no harm done at any stage of the process to anyone, anywhere, and the end goal saves lives and/or improves quality of life, I should hope you'd be in support of it.

Quote:
This post is going to be very controversial and I do sound a bit hypocritical by saying I don't want cloning/genetically engineering a perfect race but do want at least the option to prevent imperfections like disabilities. Oh well, I only posted because it's Batto's post and I like the guy.
It's controversial because you're suggesting limiting freedom for (in the first case) no reason whatsoever, or (in the second case) a very flimsy reason.
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS
  #20    
Old August 12th, 2013, 07:34 AM
Cassino's Avatar
Cassino
no
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Gender:
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
Why?

It's basically reproduction. Do you also hope to see the human race sterilized? For the record, I am hoping to have myself cloned at some point. I would like to have children at some point, and this method seems appealing to me. Considering it harms no one and brings new life into the world (as well as grants me progeny), I don't see what your issue is with it.
Not right now, but cloning as a means of reproduction would only narrow the human gene pool, right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
Considering there's no harm done at any stage of the process to anyone, anywhere, and the end goal saves lives and/or improves quality of life, I should hope you'd be in support of it.
Saving more human lives than we already do is a good thing why?

Last edited by Cassino; August 13th, 2013 at 10:14 AM.
  #21    
Old August 13th, 2013, 03:55 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassino View Post
Not right now, but cloning as a means of reproduction would only narrow the human gene pool, right?
Highly doubtful. There are some 9 billion people living right now, about 300 million of which are in the US. I could come up with a bunch of examples to demonstrate just how many people that is, but suffice it to say the number 300 million is so large that it's impossible to visualize without a means of comparison. Even if 1/10th of the nation started cloning themselves to a high degree (something that's very unlikely even in the distant future), it wouldn't make a negligible impact on the gene pool.

Quote:
Saving more human lives than we already do is a good thing why?
Wait, what? Did you type that right?

Saving human lives is an end in itself. Human life is sacred; our experiences, the things we feel, the things we do, they matter to us. I didn't even realize this was in contention. You don't need an excuse to save lives. It's pretty much inherent to any definition of "good."
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS
  #22    
Old August 14th, 2013, 09:36 AM
Cassino's Avatar
Cassino
no
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Gender:
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
Wait, what? Did you type that right?
I believe I did, if you'll excuse the nonstandard word order. I would like to query further, if you wouldn't mind.

How does providing for an individual human's experience merit inherent goodness unto itself? Our experiences are valuable, under what authority?
How does one justify adding more and more to our already excessive population at sacrifice to the wellbeing of our environment?
DA | YT | In the navy, yes, you can put your mind at ease.

Last edited by Cassino; August 14th, 2013 at 09:48 AM.
  #23    
Old August 14th, 2013, 12:03 PM
Pinkie-Dawn's Avatar
Pinkie-Dawn
I Am Become Death
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero° View Post
Instead of trying to clone species, I think it would be better to clone resources such as wood, metals, oil, etc. So that we don't run out of these resources in the future.
What concerns me about cloning resources is that they may be inferior to the originals due to a few missing/incorrect coding on the original blueprints for said resources. For example, cereal made from cloned grains won't have the same delicious taste as cereal made from the original grains.

Quote:
I understand trying to revive extinct species, but there's a reason such species are extinct. Mostly because they're not suitable to survive in the environments anymore and that's why species evolve.
What about those who were extinct by human activity such as the Tasmanian Tiger and that sub-species of Black Rhino? Was it because they weren't suitable to survive in our environment since we're the dominant species?
Credit goes to KhanadianDaleks of imgur for the gif
  #24    
Old August 14th, 2013, 01:39 PM
Cassino's Avatar
Cassino
no
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Gender:
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn View Post
What about those who were extinct by human activity such as the Tasmanian Tiger and that sub-species of Black Rhino? Was it because they weren't suitable to survive in our environment since we're the dominant species?
It could be argued that humans are just as much a normal part of the natural cycle of evolution as any other species. That is, whatever we cause to go extinct was 'meant to be' or is 'just as well', so to speak. I won't argue the point, since I think it is too soon to make that call and that we have already been unduly damaging, but there you go.
  #25    
Old August 14th, 2013, 04:09 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassino View Post
I believe I did, if you'll excuse the nonstandard word order. I would like to query further, if you wouldn't mind.

How does providing for an individual human's experience merit inherent goodness unto itself? Our experiences are valuable, under what authority?
"I think, therefore I am." Our experiences matter because we (or some of us, apparently) believe they matter.

There need be no justification for the pursuit of happiness and the preservation of human life; it is, as some wise fellows said a couple hundred years ago, self-evident. So long as we as a species possess the ability to comprehend our wants and realize they are worth protecting, they become worth protecting.

Quote:
How does one justify adding more and more to our already excessive population at sacrifice to the wellbeing of our environment?
I find it hard to believe what I'm hearing. This argument could be used to justify something as extreme as genocide or mass murder, and in fact has been used as justification for these. This is dangerous talk; I sincerely hope you're merely playing devil's advocate and don't actually believe the wanton destruction of human life is justifiable.

"Overpopulation" is not a problem at all. The world's a large place, and contrary to what you've implied, we're in no danger of any environmental doomsday that is directly related to our population size. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence that the world as a whole suffers from any sort of problems related to overpopulation; perhaps in some densely populated cities it is a problem, but that is another matter entirely.

That said, even if we were in the most severe danger conceivable and it was directly related to population size, that's not an excuse to kill people or let them die. Above all else, human life and happiness has value. Sacrificing these values to "save the environment" is unacceptable; the whole point of keeping the environment stable is to preserve human life and happiness. If we could get by on an arid planet with no resources, there would be far less reason to protect the environment (though I'm sure some people would still try).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn View Post
What concerns me about cloning resources is that they may be inferior to the originals due to a few missing/incorrect coding on the original blueprints for said resources. For example, cereal made from cloned grains won't have the same delicious taste as cereal made from the original grains.
That's merely a problem with technique and can be solved with more research into the topic. It doesn't have to be perfect, either; even normal reproduction isn't without its share of mutations and alterations.
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS
Post Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 06:46 PM.

About Us
© 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com. Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.

Copyright
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com. PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator. Header artwork by Jordanice of deviantART.

Social Media
If you would like to stay up-to-date with us on the go, when we're down, or other such things, follow us on social media sites--most notibly Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus--by clicking on the links provided.

Design presented by Peitharchia. Special thanks to Hiroshi Sotomura and Ausaudriel.