Curse

DreamRunner · Nov 17, 2009, 04:44 AM // 04:44

The biggest problem with cloning is the how the clones won't be able to develop a proper immune system. It literally takes out mother nature and creates huge problems with defenses against disease and viruses.

Zahr Dalsk · Nov 17, 2009, 04:56 AM // 04:56

Oh give me a clone,
of my own flesh and bone
With its Y chromosome turned to X
And then when it's grown
My own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.

Clone, clone of my own,
With the Y chromosome changed to X.
And when we're alone,
Since her mind is my own,
She'll be thinking of nothing but sex!

- Isaac Asimov

zwei2stein · Nov 17, 2009, 10:00 AM // 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

The biggest problem with cloning is the how the clones won't be able to develop a proper immune system. It literally takes out mother nature and creates huge problems with defenses against disease and viruses.

Umm ... no?

First 'clones' would propably not grow in vats like everyone would think by watching sci-fi movies, but instead good old egg in womb method as there are plenty of females with free wombs and in need of money.

That takes care of imune system pretty well, add some human milk and typical child mudcrawling and tasting everything and you are fine.

DreamRunner · Nov 17, 2009, 11:51 AM // 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Umm ... no?

First 'clones' would propably not grow in vats like everyone would think by watching sci-fi movies, but instead good old egg in womb method as there are plenty of females with free wombs and in need of money.

That takes care of imune system pretty well, add some human milk and typical child mudcrawling and tasting everything and you are fine.

So we are thinking up hypothetical situations about cloning? I was thinking about today with the current science and technology, especially cloning of animals but more so cows and livestock. It is because Surrogate mothers are treated with high doses of hormones - the clones are often born with severely compromised immune systems and frequently receive massive doses of antibiotics. But instead you could eat cloned cows which The NAS (National Academy of Sciences) warned that commercialization of cloned livestock for food production could increase the incidence of food-borne illnesses.

Cloning at the moment is very complex but human cloning doesn't exist because there is no evidence of it. However, cloning isn't some twin like carbon copy of the original. The environmental factors especially your social-economic development has huge effects on the well-being of a person.

Rocky Raccoon · Nov 17, 2009, 01:22 PM // 13:22

What is the difference between taking 2 cells from 2 different people and fertilizing them and placing them back in the womb and taking 1 cell from 1 person and doing the exact same thing?

Zahr Dalsk · Nov 17, 2009, 01:31 PM // 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

What is the difference between taking 2 cells from 2 different people and fertilizing them and placing them back in the womb and taking 1 cell from 1 person and doing the exact same thing?

There is no difference, but religious and/or spiritual people aren't known for being rational. They can make imaginary differences.

DreamRunner · Nov 17, 2009, 02:02 PM // 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

What is the difference between taking 2 cells from 2 different people and fertilizing them and placing them back in the womb and taking 1 cell from 1 person and doing the exact same thing?

Are Monozygotic twins, or also known as identical twins the same?

Rocky Raccoon · Nov 17, 2009, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

Are Monozygotic twins, or also known as identical twins the same?

There can be differences even though they are identical. I found this good example to explain.

"If the differences between identical twins are difficult to understand, think of twins as two chocalate chip cookies made from the same recipe. Even though the same basic ingredients are used for the dough, it’s impossible to create two virtually identical cookies. Subtle differences in size, color, and texture are simply inevitable since a cookie’s position in the oven will determine how evenly it is baked. In this way, both nature and nurture contribute to the differences we see in identical twins"

The same could be said for a cloned embryo as it develops in the womb.

AtomicMew · Nov 17, 2009, 07:14 PM // 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

You are pretty screwed in head, you know, right?

Err, now. You see, anything non-european was supposed to be soulless and hence just speaking animal with no rights.

Analogy is perfect, Clone will be full human with everything any other human has. I am sure he/she/it (it as child) would really appreciate your personal in face explanation how they have no rights.

I hate to entertain sophmoric approaches to the subject; your basic argument is that you feel that clones are human, therefore they are human. I would like for you to at least try to understand the philosophical issues underlying the subject, before making an argument. From a completely utilitarian perspective, sexual slave clones would be obviously desired and useful, and so from this perspective, it would be really hot to have sex slave clones. Of course, an argument from this perspective alone does not have much merit. (More to follow below).

PS: Technology has NOT outpaced ethics, as someone here suggested. The philosophical treatment of ethics is robust enough to account for all of the human condition, even if the technical language and terminology would make it appear anachronistic. The real problem is that people are quite limited (c.f. stupid) and human nature does not learn or change.

Quote:

is a clone's child a human?

Obviously, it would be unethical to allow clones to replicate, for the simple fact that you would be creating an orphan, Parentless children would be an unnecessary burden on society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anakita

From a scientific standpoint, a "clone" is simply another individual genetically identical to the donor. The clone is no more an extension of the original than an identical twin would be. They are fully separate organisms with the same genetic code.

First of all, it is not even true that clones are "identical." Physically, a clone is not identical for obvious reasons. Genetically, actually a clone has a severely reduced genome compared to the original organism, which limits the clones essential viability.

Even if science were able to mend a clone's DNA and create a viable copy, even if science could put someone in a machine and copy atom for atom, there would still be a difference. The term in philosophy is qualia, an emergent property based on the subjective aspect of the mind which may not ever be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science. The difference is not between alive and not-alive (e.g. physical), but rather moral autonomy and causal depedendence.

Think of it this way: suppose you are put in a room that is completely empty, except for a large red button and a large TV screen. Scenario 1: you are told that if you press the button, 10 people will die horrible deaths. You press the button, the TV turns on, and you watch as 10 people who are tied up in metal chains are doused in low-burning diesel and are, one by one, slowly burned to death over the course of several hours.

Scenario 2: you are put in a similar room and told that if you don't press the button, 10 people will die a horrible death. You do nothing, the TV turns on, and you see a beautiful woman tied down to a hospital bed. On the side of the bed is an IV drip, which is then filled with a strange bright orange liquid. A few moments after the orange liquid (orange juice?) enters the woman's veins, she starts screaming maniacally and continues for what seems like hours, at which point, it appears she begins to have trouble breathing, her body shaking spasmodically, finally stops after almost half an hour. A new person is brought in, and the process is repeated 9 times.

Although the decision tree and consequences are completely isomorphic, there is a difference. To think otherwise would be what is called consequentalism (the ends justify the means).

Rocky Raccoon · Nov 17, 2009, 07:35 PM // 19:35

What happens in scenario 1 if you don't push the button?
What happens in scenario 2 if you do push the button?

Lihinel · Nov 17, 2009, 08:53 PM // 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

What is the difference between taking 2 cells from 2 different people and fertilizing them and placing them back in the womb and taking 1 cell from 1 person and doing the exact same thing?

As Christians will point out to you, the difference is that whenever a sperm meets an egg a blob with a soul is created, the majority of which are unable to nest in the womb, resulting in a natural abortion, resulting in the souls going directly to the mist, into the soul river in the realm of torment, where dhuums driders catch them so they can be offert to their masters ally yahweh, who is still weakend and chained in the heart of the realm, waiting for time to rise.

Wait... I think I mixed something up there...

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

From a completely utilitarian perspective, sexual slave clones would be obviously desired and useful, and so from this perspective, it would be really hot to have sex slave clones. Of course, an argument from this perspective alone does not have much merit. (More to follow below).

Please point out the principle difference of cloning a hot blonde (resulting in a slightly impaired clone with low life expectations) and snatching some mentally challenged russian girl from an orphanage for the same use while killing her when shes 25.

But then again, thats what I meant with arguments about cloning that couldn't be applied to humans already. Otherwise your statement just sounds like one of the classic critisisms of utilitarianism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Obviously, it would be unethical to allow clones to replicate, for the simple fact that you would be creating an orphan, Parentless children would be an unnecessary burden on society.

Which is why we don't allow people with low live expectations to reproduce... wait a second!

AtomicMew · Nov 17, 2009, 10:41 PM // 22:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihinel

Please point out the principle difference of cloning a hot blonde (resulting in a slightly impaired clone with low life expectations) and snatching some mentally challenged russian girl from an orphanage for the same use while killing her when shes 25.

But then again, thats what I meant with arguments about cloning that couldn't be applied to humans already. Otherwise your statement just sounds like one of the classic critisisms of utilitarianism.

From a completely utilitarian perspective, there is no difference, (assuming the orphan girl has no chance of life and will die anyway). Of course, I don't believe in a completely utilitarian view of the world, neither does society, and I also never argued for one.

My argument does not rely on this perspective of the world. Please re-read my post and think carefully instead of responding instinctively and emotionally.

Quote:

Which is why we don't allow people with low live expectations to reproduce... wait a second!

Non-sequitur.

KageNoShi · Nov 17, 2009, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

What happens in scenario 1 if you don't push the button?
What happens in scenario 2 if you do push the button?

Most likely
Scenario 1: You get a cookie.
Scenario 2: You end up watching whatever is on TV(odds are its a re-run of some movie we've all seen 100 times or more)

Those are my guesses though.

Winterclaw · Nov 17, 2009, 11:37 PM // 23:37

1. Christianity is not babble.
2. If cloning happens, the "best" workers and "elites" would be cloned and everyone else would be eliminated because our individual flaws (or individuality at all for that matter) don't fit well into a liberal, progressive, fascist society's utopia. You would have the sheep needed to give the few elites what they want and need and the elites. There would be no room for any other kind of person in that society.

Divinitys Creature · Nov 17, 2009, 11:58 PM // 23:58

I would clone myself and replace the y chromosome with an x and make myself the perfect partner <3

Rocky Raccoon · Nov 18, 2009, 01:16 AM // 01:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

1. Christianity is not babble.
2. If cloning happens, the "best" workers and "elites" would be cloned and everyone else would be eliminated because our individual flaws (or individuality at all for that matter) don't fit well into a liberal, progressive, fascist society's utopia. You would have the sheep needed to give the few elites what they want and need and the elites. There would be no room for any other kind of person in that society.

Liberal Noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform

Progressive: Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters

Fascist: A person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

It seem to me you can't be a Progressive Liberal Fascist as the terms contradict.

You can be a Conservative Fascist though.

MMSDome · Nov 18, 2009, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

1. Christianity is not babble.
.

I was not saying Christianity is babble I was saying the Christian arguments are babble. You should know by now I am a right-wing person and a Christian. I was simply saying that the whole 'God' argument in cloning is ludicrous.

Eskimoz · Nov 18, 2009, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Alright enough bull crap.

Cloning is downright inferior to the good old fashion way of making Humans.

There, I have finished this debate. Where is my cookie?

MMSDome · Nov 19, 2009, 02:49 AM // 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimoz

Alright enough bull crap.

Cloning is downright inferior to the good old fashion way of making Humans.

There, I have finished this debate. Where is my cookie?

Cloning eliminates the chance of getting Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD's) and AID's.

That is superior.

Evasion Twenty · Nov 19, 2009, 04:37 AM // 04:37

I cant have a clone to rake the lawn?

PLEASE?