# Cloning



## Foxbat (Jan 18, 2004)

This is a very hot chestnut right now. So what does everybody think about the claims of a woman being impregnated with a cloned embryo?

It seems to me the only person not allowed an opinion on the subject is the human being that this embryo will (if it survives) grow into. And what defects will it have to endure because of a reckless scientist and his mad rush to be the first? Dolly the sheep had to be put down because of severe arthritis and premature ageing - what of this child? What will it endure?

Just because we _can _do a thing doesn't mean we _have _to do it.

A very difficult thing to police but, to my mind, these scientists should be made to suffer the consequences. Sure, (given the state of international law) it might be near  impossible to stop them actually doing the work but there must be some way to hold them accountable when things go wrong.

Your thoughts people?


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 18, 2004)

If you had the ability to clone the figures from history:

 Einstein, Tesla, Hitler, Stalin.

Would they have the same drive to turn them into men that they became.

Tesla and Einstein were men of intellect, but their environment may have enabled them to come up with their work.

Who would have come up with the theory of gravity if that apple didn't fall on some guy's head?

Would Hitler and Stalin have become the same? Both may have been sociopaths and could have become CEO's in the late twentieth century.

In fiction there was a story of a guy taking genetic material in order to clone writers, but would they turn out the same.

It's still an intellectual exercise, but would you really want to have a bunch of sociopathic clones running around ala "Boys of Brazil".


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 18, 2004)

Again, it's a "no proof offered" claim. I think the chronicles-network should claim to have cloned an embryo as well, seeing as everyone is riding the publicity wave on the issue!

What's worse is that human cloning isn't properly banned - there's a weird alliance in the UN between the USA, the Vatican, and various Islamic nations, who insist that *all* human cloning be banned. 

Other nations, however, want to make a disinction for therapeutic cloning - but the alliance above sees _that_ as condoning abortion.

It's all very silly - and, ultimately, will be very tragic.

I expect humanity will finally do it. What's sad is the motivations and lack of empathy by those involved who finally succeed in this.


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 18, 2004)

I concur...... In sci fi there have been stories about rich humans having three clones. Their organs would be harvested if needed by the original.

In the "brave new world" to occur I can think of possible advantages, for instance cloned organs from the original. You've got transplant organs that won't be rejected by the body.

I actually have visions of cloned children of some dictator who wants to become immortal. Then if they develop ways to transplant human brains into another body that would not reject the foreign tissue?  

The development of fully adult clones would be the nightmare. I can see government thinking of making clone armies.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 19, 2004)

To begin with, I'd have to see far more proof of this happening than anyone is offering, that I've seen.

Second of all, I think any efforts to clone a human now are highly ill-advised, considering all the problems cloned animals of other species have had.  It just isn't right to even potentially expose a cloned human being to these serious problems, aside from all the _other_ very good reasons for not cloning human beings.

Third, science fiction stories notwithstanding, I wonder when the population at large is going to realize that a clone of a person will never, ever _be_ that person.  Every human is at least as much of a result of his or her environment - time and place raised, influences exposed to, etc. - as he or she is of genetics.  So, the clone would look more or less like the person cloned (even identical twins which are, after all, natural clones don't always look exactly alike) but could never have exactly the same ideas and attitudes as the individual they were cloned from.  So I think the idea of supporting cloning on the basis of producing, say, another Einstein, or opposing cloning on the theory that there is the risk of producing, for example, another Hitler, are misplaced at best.

Personally, I oppose the idea of cloning human beings on philosophical and spiritual grounds.  Ever.  At any time.  If that makes me a Luddite, so be it.  I am not so opposed to the idea of therapeutic cloning of body parts, which could be of benefit to the human race at some point.  There is a huge difference between the two.

My two cents.


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 19, 2004)

There will always be the question regarding nurture or nature.

What would have happened if Hitler was raised by a Tibetan monks or by Jewish people. Would it have made a difference or was he a sociopath in the first place and would have ended up being the same, albeit with different results.

Briian is correct though I have found a way to clone myself. 

I am currently using cows that have been anally probed by Aliens as they seem to be the best candidates for surrogates.

So when should I announce a press conference?


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 19, 2004)

If this has been done then we should forget fiction - this is real - this is now.

Here's my point: Let's say that somebody creates a clone and a woman gives birth to this clone. Let's say that (like Dolly) this clone has/or develops severe abnormalities or disabilities. 

This is my question: Who is responsible? Who is held to account? What rights does the clone have - after all he/she will have to live with these inflictions. 
Sure, disabilities can occur naturally - but that is altogether different from scientists administering little understood methods with reckless abandon.

In my opinion the rights of the individual should be paramount here - and by that I mean the rights of the clone - not the creator.


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 19, 2004)

Pure and simple, if the clone is made from a human being then it is defacto human and should be allowed self determination.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 20, 2004)

nemogbr said:
			
		

> Pure and simple, if the clone is made from a human being then it is defacto human and should be allowed self determination.


I agree completely.  There seems to be some sort of idea floating around that a clone could be someone or some institution's property.  That is tantamount to slavery, and should not be condoned.  If cloning does come about, the individuals who result from the process will be just as much human beings as individuals conceived in the traditional way or through in vitro or any other way.

However, as I said before, I just don't think this sort of cloning should even be attempted.


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 21, 2004)

You know what's going to happen, someone will always push the envelope until they get bitten where it hurts.

cloning, genetic engineering. .....If Nazi Germany had this knowledge they would have succeeded in creating the ubermensch, but then Frankenstein's monsters would have turned on their creators.

Or am I reading too much fiction?


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jan 23, 2004)

I have what may seem a silly question. Is it possible to clone individual organs rather than entire organisms? Some posts here have assumed so, but I am not certain if that is a fact. 


This would seem to overcome some ethical objections to cloning, if possible.

As far as cloning people goes, you can't clone personalities. The only real reason to tread carefully would be possible health problems for the clone itself.


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 24, 2004)

knivesout said:
			
		

> I have what may seem a silly question. Is it possible to clone individual organs rather than entire organisms? Some posts here have assumed so, but I am not certain if that is a fact.
> 
> This would seem to overcome some ethical objections to cloning, if possible.
> 
> As far as cloning people goes, you can't clone personalities. The only real reason to tread carefully would be possible health problems for the clone itself.


That would be the big leap if they could clone an organ and not have to clone the whole body in the process.

Worse/Best case scenario you transplant a brain into a clone and the person ends up having another lifespan.

In the forgetable action film "Sixth Day" the premise that they invented a way to also copy another persons memories and only a mark would show a clone being the copy. They are otherwise interchangeable. They also had fully grown clones that only needed to be programmed to the correct body appearance and then implanted with memories.

Now that would be scary..


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 24, 2004)

> _I have what may seem a silly question. Is it possible to clone individual organs rather than entire organisms? Some posts here have assumed so, but I am not certain if that is a fact. _


There is a theory being touted around - Shadowing (which, to me, is morally repugnant). The crux of the matter is that a person is cloned. The clone is kept in a comatose state and 'harvested' as required for organs. The idea being, if the organ is taken from the clone and placed in the recipient (ie. the person that was cloned) there would be no chance of organ rejection. 
A technique which, if ever applied (and I hope not) would result in the rich living longer because, let's face it, only the rich could afford this.
On the bright side - great material for my next story


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jan 24, 2004)

I've heard of Shadowing. It really is the most morally loathsome concept, so I'm sure that there will be future generations who make extensive use of it.  

As far as identies/personalities go I really don't think cloning is as much the issue as duplicating a person's brain, or rather their memories. I believe that this could be done on a chemical level, but is not yet possible. Until then, most SFnal cloning scenarios are clearly out of the question.


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 24, 2004)

knivesout said:
			
		

> I've heard of Shadowing. It really is the most morally loathsome concept, so I'm sure that there will be future generations who make extensive use of it.
> 
> .


I think at this moment people in general have seen the sci fi films and know many of the theories of cloning and hopefully, hopefully...reallly hopefully, know what a pandora's box it would be to open the idea of "Shadowing". 

Never heard of the term "shadowing" before, although I have seen it in sci fi series "Sliders" and comic book series "Superman". In both they ended up with a clone war.

Sliders had a clone underground helping clones escape from facilities made for their interment. The clones are kep locked up unknowing of the world.

In Superman three clones are kept in stasis waiting for the day when they might be needed for harvesting.
 
Both scenarios better be avoided for the future well being of the human race.


I know that it is unlikely to be done in our current technology, but it can easily be seen to work in the future. 

There should be laws enacted right now to prevent this occurence.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 24, 2004)

> There should be laws enacted right now to prevent this occurence


I agree. But the problem is that the basic concepts and techniques have already been worked out. Unfortunately, we can't uninvent a technology and, given the nature of international law and the difficulty of its application, it's likely that there will always be somebody willing to push the boundaries.  
I believe that, if not already, it's only a matter of time before a human clone appears - and probably in some little known country where International Law is either ignored or out of reach. We can only hope that conscience prevents the application of this science but, sadly, I don't put too much faith in that.


----------



## nemogbr (Feb 3, 2004)

I can see the U.N. attempting to make a law preventing the cloning of humans.

Would the U.S.A. ratify it though? There would be two powerful lobbies vying for power the corporates and the religious sides. Who would win?

The fact that the U.S. has never ratified that it's a human right to have food and clean water leaves me doubtful.
"Free Trade" so to speak always gains the upperhand so more than likely the U.S.A. would not ratify the outlawing of human cloning. 

I think Britain already made laws against cloning embryos so at least they won't follow the U.S. this time.


----------



## Michael (May 21, 2004)

nemogbr said:
			
		

> There should be laws enacted right now to prevent this occurence.


Yes--ban it now!  That really sounds horrible.  Who thought of it anyway? 

I do think it's a bad idea to clone individual humans.  If we can clone just the organs for transplants I'd support that.  But there are just too many things that can and probably will go wrong the other way.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 22, 2004)

The problem with the cloning issue is that religiously-orientated governments (US, Arab nations, the Vatican) refuse to ban human cloning as a practice, unless they can include cloning of stem cells in an outright ban. Of course, more secular governments (UK, other European nations, etc) want to make specific exclusions to allow cloning for specific areas of medical research. For the moment, on the world stage, it has created deadlock.


----------



## Foxbat (May 22, 2004)

Here's a few lines from the late (great) Bob Calvert (Hawkwind)

I am a clone, I am not alone
every fibre of my flesh and bone is in the same tone
as my test tube brothers' voice
there is no choice between us, if you had ever seen us
you'd rejoice in your uniqueness and consider every weakness
something special of your own.
Being a clone I have no flaws to identify -
even this doggerel that pours from my pen
has just been written by another twenty telepathic men.
Word for word it says
Oh for the wings of any bird
other than a battery hen.

Nuff said.


----------



## Sage Orion (May 24, 2004)

Cloning should never arrise, but it has. 

Ban Cloning for it will destroy human kind!!!! 

Cloning is playing with God/trying to be God. 
I will hate to see our future with clones walking around!! 

Robots as well will destroy our nations working people 
and clones both have to go!!!


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

Sage Orion said:
			
		

> Cloning should never arrise, but it has.
> 
> Ban Cloning for it will destroy human kind!!!!
> 
> ...


Want to give us a little more substance here?  I'm sorry, Jasmine, but you make it too easy for me to do this!


----------



## Sage Orion (May 24, 2004)

What do you mean.....too easy to do this???


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

Sage Orion said:
			
		

> What do you mean.....too easy to do this???


I'm sorry.  I can't help it.  Whenever someone uses mainly the Bible or "God commanded it" to back up an argument all I can do think about Pat Robertson.   The Bible is an excellent reference and I use it often, but I also like to use other, non-religious or even alterenative religious sources (if I know any relevant to the topic).

The "God commanded it" thing I really can't get behind at all. I need something more than that.

I respect everyone's opinion, of course. Keep expressing yours please!


----------



## Sage Orion (May 24, 2004)

What I meant was towards cloning.  

Cloning is not only playing God, but it scares the sh it out of me!!!! 

And having Robots live along side people, we'll lose our jobs for sure!! 

Technology is already doing that!!


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

Sage Orion said:
			
		

> What I meant was towards cloning.
> 
> Cloning is not only playing God, but it scares the sh it out of me!!!!
> 
> ...


That's a little better! There are definitely issues about both cloning and robotics that I find frightening. However, I also think that any way we receive healing is a gift from God. If we can clone _only individual organs_ I'm all for it. This could save a lot of lives.

Most of the reason that _anything_ frightens me is because of how it might be misused or abused by humans. The same goes for robotics and cloning. There are ways to use robots that could actually benefit humankind, I just don't believe that the people in charge will do it that way!

(See--I actually had something to say this time!)


----------



## Sage Orion (May 24, 2004)

Of course you did!!  

I totally agree to that staement!!


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

One should never fear progress, only respect its consequences. Nanomedicine, stem cells and cloning are the future tools of medicine, and we should utilise them to their full extent for the betterment of our species. This has nothing to do with playing God (we have been gods since we lit a fire for the first time); it has everything to do with our advancement as a species.

Cloning, as it stands now, is still in its least advanced stages, and the possibilities once we master this art are endless. As long as we are able to set a international regulations which all scientists are bound by agreement to follow, not banning the process entirely- one can never halt the future. And *this* is the future.

Michael, you are far too paranoid. There will always be people in power with their own agenda, but I don't see why this should stop us, long-term.

God is an imagined factor, and he always will be. We need to stop hiding behind our beliefs, and pick up the mantle of responsibility for our own species. No one else will.

Robots- Someone read the _Butlerian Jihad_ one too many times. This is not Hollywood, nor is it Frank Herbert's imagination.


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

Hypes said:
			
		

> One should never fear progress, only respect its consequences. Nanomedicine, stem cells and cloning are the future tools of medicine, and we should utilise them to their full extent for the betterment of our species. This has nothing to do with playing God (we have been gods since we lit a fire for the first time); it has everything to do with our advancement as a species.
> 
> Cloning, as it stands now, is still in its least advanced stages, and the possibilities once we master this art are endless. As long as we are able to set a international regulations which all scientists are bound by agreement to follow, not banning the process entirely- one can never halt the future. And *this* is the future.
> 
> ...


No really--I'm not quite _that_ bad! I wouldn't want to bring progress to a halt or anything like that! Distrusting people in power is just my trademark.

Robotics and cloning would be _extremely_ beneficial as long as people do not abuse them.  Technology is just another tool, after all.


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

You can count on _someone_ to abuse it, don't worry. There are always people who will use it for their own purposes.


----------



## Michael (May 24, 2004)

Hypes said:
			
		

> You can count on _someone_ to abuse it, don't worry. There are always people who will use it for their own purposes.


Sad but true, I'm afraid. Still, like you said, that's no reason to stop.


----------



## Hypes (May 24, 2004)

We will simply have to weather the difficulties, and reap the fruits of our labour afterwards.

Either that, or clean up the fallout.


----------

