Cloning and Genetic Modification

NebulaMeowstic001 · May 3, 2016

I've seen a lot of information lately regarding cloning and genetic modification. Here are various questions that stem from these possibilities.

Should we modify organisms to produce more food or other resources?
Should we modify organisms to produce different proteins, for example, engineering cows to produce proteins used for medicine in their milk?
Should we modify animals just to make them look cool as pets, for example, GloFish?
Should we modify animals to make them dependent on something they can't get in the wild, to make them harder to reproduce, or to allow them to breed with the wild population and pass these genes to their children in order to control populations?
Should we use gene therapy (Replacing faulty genes with functional ones) to cure diseases?
How far should we go with human genetic modification?
Should we clone organisms that have excellent traits so we can have more of them (Cows with the best milk, sheep with the best wool, etc)?
Should we clone endangered animals in attempt to increase their populations?
Should we take cell samples of our pets so we can have them cloned after they are gone, even though they won't have any old memories (unless we upload the original memories and download them into the clone once technology allows for it)?
Should we even be cloning and genetically modifying organisms in the first place?

What are your opinions on these topics, or other topics related to genetic modification and cloning?

gimmepie · May 4, 2016

Should we modify organisms to produce more food or other resources?

Absolutely. There's an enormous portion of the world's population who have very little food as a result not only of poverty but also environmental factors. Engineering food sources that produce more food and that can survive harsher environments is a huge step towards ending famine in third world countries.

Should we modify organisms to produce different proteins, for example, engineering cows to produce proteins used for medicine in their milk?

If it doesn't have an adverse effect on the animals or on the environment, I don't see many reasons why we shouldn't. The only one really springing to mind is the possibility of it leading to a population crisis.

Should we modify animals just to make them look cool as pets, for example, GloFish?

Absolutely not. This is a colossal waste of funding.

Should we modify animals to make them dependent on something they can't get in the wild, to make them harder to reproduce, or to allow them to breed with the wild population and pass these genes to their children in order to control populations?

I think this is much more humane than culling. Don't you?

Should we use gene therapy (Replacing faulty genes with functional ones) to cure diseases?

This is the way forward to curing a lot of horrible, horrible diseases. We should absolutely look into this as a means of furthering medicine.

How far should we go with human genetic modification?

I don't know. I think this is a really murky area and that most of us will have trouble saying where we draw the line until we're put in a situation where it's time to get out the chalk.

Should we clone organisms that have excellent traits so we can have more of them (Cows with the best milk, sheep with the best wool, etc)?

I don't think so. If there's not enough genetic variance in the population it's ultimately going to lead to deficiencies in animals unless you want to maintain a population solely through cloning and remove their ability to breed.

Should we clone endangered animals in attempt to increase their populations?

Same as above.

Should we take cell samples of our pets so we can have them cloned after they are gone, even though they won't have any old memories (unless we upload the original memories and download them into the clone once technology allows for it)?

I don't see anything wrong with it. I think it has the potential to actually be a sadder experience in the long run though.

Should we even be cloning and genetically modifying organisms in the first place?

Genetic modification is the way to solve a lot of the worlds problems. We absolutely should be making forays into this field of science.

KetsuekiR · May 4, 2016

Should we take cell samples of our pets so we can have them cloned after they are gone, even though they won't have any old memories (unless we upload the original memories and download them into the clone once technology allows for it)?

No, to put it bluntly. I may not believe in an afterlife similar to what most religions show, but I do believe that once something dies, you should let it go. Cloning a deceased pet is akin, to me, to cloning a deceased relative. Much in the same way you wouldn't clone your grandparent (as an example) if or once he passes away, you shouldn't clone a pet. It is, in my opinion, morally wrong to do so, as it's not our right to deprive someone or something of death.

Additionally, as a Buddhist, I believe in the principle that life's base is suffering. Therefore, in that sense, reviving a being is more a punishment done out of a selfish need for company than a true love for that being.

KetsuekiR · May 4, 2016

Elektra Heart said:
I dunno, I'd be pretty thrilled to be brought back healthy as a buck after dying. That is, as long as I remembered anything. No use in bringing back a mindless clone with no memories.

Sure, when you die, if the technology exists, and we do too, we'll work together and bring you back to life (xD). That said, can you make that decision for your pets or other loved ones? Is that really your choice to make?

KetsuekiR · May 5, 2016

Elektra Heart said:
For human beings, I think the responsible thing to do is to put whether or not you want to be revived in your will (that sounds weird lol.) For pets, I'm not sure. If it's 100% cruelty-free then I think they'd be fine. They probably wouldn't even remember dying.

I suppose it comes down to what death means and is to you. Like I said, I'm a Buddhist and I believe in the principle that life's base is suffering, and that death is not something that you or anyone has the right to take away from another being, animal or man. Of course, humans can write their own wills and ask to be brought back, if they so wish, and that's their call to make.

You could argue that humans euthanize pets and vaccinate them, and that's our choice, not theirs, but that's to make life better for them, mostly. Bringing it back from the death isn't making life better for them, it's forcing them to relive what they shouldn't have to. It's somewhat difficult to explain and I feel like I'm just iterating the same thing in different ways. One last time; it depends on what death means to you, and it's importance.

Caaethil · Jun 1, 2016

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we modify organisms to produce more food or other resources?

Sure.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we modify organisms to produce different proteins, for example, engineering cows to produce proteins used for medicine in their milk?

Yes.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we modify animals just to make them look cool as pets, for example, GloFish?

Don't care. If you want.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we modify animals to make them dependent on something they can't get in the wild, to make them harder to reproduce, or to allow them to breed with the wild population and pass these genes to their children in order to control populations?

Absolutely not. A nightmare waiting to happen.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we use gene therapy (Replacing faulty genes with functional ones) to cure diseases?

100% yes.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]How far should we go with human genetic modification?

Cure stuff. As for appearance and such, which I suppose is what you're really wondering my opinion on... No, probably not. Let's not do that. I'd be willing to accept it though if it meant we could also cure diseases.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we clone organisms that have excellent traits so we can have more of them (Cows with the best milk, sheep with the best wool, etc)?

No. Selective breeding says hi.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we clone endangered animals in attempt to increase their populations?

I mean, as a last resort, sure.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we take cell samples of our pets so we can have them cloned after they are gone, even though they won't have any old memories (unless we upload the original memories and download them into the clone once technology allows for it)?

I'm not sure why you'd care that much about their memories, it seems a bit silly, but, uh... I really don't care. It seems like a silly thing to do, but I wouldn't be totally against another doing that.

NebulaMeowstic001 said:
[*]Should we even be cloning and genetically modifying organisms in the first place?

I think you can guess my answer is yes.

Cloning and Genetic Modification

More options

NebulaMeowstic001

gimmepie

KetsuekiR

Ridiculously unsure

KetsuekiR

Ridiculously unsure

KetsuekiR

Ridiculously unsure

Caaethil

#1 Greninja Fan