Jayfeather
Gay Magician
natural lucky occurrences can be replicated if we see what their result is
If 'A' and 'B' happen to make 'C', then all we have to do is know 'A' and 'B' and we could at some point, or maybe now, or maybe in the past, do 'C'.
Cloning
- Thread starter Willchill
- Start date
If 'A' and 'B' happen to make 'C', then all we have to do is know 'A' and 'B' and we could at some point, or maybe now, or maybe in the past, do 'C'.
Would these clones look the same as somebody? Would they consume resources such as food and water? Somebody that looks like a human dying would kill me. I don't want to see a clone of my family dying in a shortened time, aging extremely fast. It just seems, unnatural and... blegh, to me. But you know, that's just like, my opinion, man.
CloudBryan9
Your Local Time Traveler
Actually cloning right now isn't in test tubes, sorry. The womb has its own environment that is unique, thus affecting the development. So no perfect identical clones.
If we do clone humans, what happens to the "rejects"? Really, really think about that. And what that could justify for stuff to be done to non-clones. Sorry for taking this discussion down that route. But that is the huge moral dilemma.
If we do clone humans, what happens to the "rejects"? Really, really think about that. And what that could justify for stuff to be done to non-clones. Sorry for taking this discussion down that route. But that is the huge moral dilemma.
The justification is there: that it is unnatural and immoral. We where made with a very specific cycle in life, so why should we modify it by making Clones? And this whole thing isn't a claim, its a fact. Sorry if this is getting a bit heated.
It all depends on what you define as "natural".
And the "very specific cycle" you are referring to is as follows, biologically: Live, reproduce, die.
We have been modifying it since...Well, always. The average life expectancy of the average homosapien used to be twenty to thirty years. Through human intervention, It is now seventy-five. Is that not a modification of our life cycle?
Edit: (Yes this is how you should do edits, not simply by adding on to your original post after I've responded to it)
And if you have no evidence, and are basing it off of solely moral grounds, it's opinion, and therefore, a claim.
Last edited:
Defiant_Blob
(￣^￣)ゞ
I say no, really. Like, yeah, it'd be cool and all cause science, but I highly doubt that clones would be given the same rights as non-clones. They'd be treated as sub-human, especially if cloning becomes commercialized (for some reason), where they'd be imperfect clones and such.
I just don't see a good reason that doesn't basically treat the clones as sub-human expendables?
What I think it will be used for is war, sex-trade, slavery, etc.
There is the possibility that each person could simply be cloned for immortality purposes; that is, having a stock of clones on standby that will replace you when you die and just have your memories transferred over. But that's not REALLY immortality, because the old you would still be dead.
But then again, no one is actually really alive longer than a second. Your brain is constantly disconnecting and reconnecting, and you aren't the person you were five seconds ago: that person is dead.
Back on topic though, the "immortality" thing would probably be reserved for the extremely wealthy (supporting a stock of clones on standby constantly costs a lot of money), which calls more ethics into question? Mr. Bill Gates here gets to live forever, while Mr. Middle Class only gets to live 70 years.
tl;dr cloning has no good reason that doesn't mistreat clones themselves
which is kinda gross
Also, cool the heat guys. You asked parquette his opinion and he gave it, don't go all super-offensive on him.
I just don't see a good reason that doesn't basically treat the clones as sub-human expendables?
What I think it will be used for is war, sex-trade, slavery, etc.
There is the possibility that each person could simply be cloned for immortality purposes; that is, having a stock of clones on standby that will replace you when you die and just have your memories transferred over. But that's not REALLY immortality, because the old you would still be dead.
But then again, no one is actually really alive longer than a second. Your brain is constantly disconnecting and reconnecting, and you aren't the person you were five seconds ago: that person is dead.
Back on topic though, the "immortality" thing would probably be reserved for the extremely wealthy (supporting a stock of clones on standby constantly costs a lot of money), which calls more ethics into question? Mr. Bill Gates here gets to live forever, while Mr. Middle Class only gets to live 70 years.
tl;dr cloning has no good reason that doesn't mistreat clones themselves
which is kinda gross
Also, cool the heat guys. You asked parquette his opinion and he gave it, don't go all super-offensive on him.
Why is everyone jumping the gun on this? You're supposed to pass judgment on something based on the direct implications, not the what ifs. No one ever refused to cut down a tree because of the possibility that the wood might start a fire that could burn down a house.
Theodorre
The Fail Chipmunk
If that's the reason they'd clone, then hell to the no. That's barbaric, in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they'd still feel pain and such, yes? (I know nothing about cloning). The idea that mankind can create life would be too tempting for the sick, twisted psychopaths, and these clones would be used for their own advantage. Something else for activists to have to fight for, as if they don't already have enough suppressed groups to defend.
EDIT: Creating anything just so it can be experimented on/used for labour/used for something else is wrong IMO, my problem is not with the actual cloning itself but with the reasons.
I obviously can't argue this from a scientific point of view because my issue with this is a moral one.
Last edited:
So using robots for labour is wrong? Surely there is a way to take a way emotions, personality etc so the clone is practically a robot.
Perhaps there's a way to clone to the body without actually making it live so the long transplant lists wont be long anymore? Idk much about it either but surely there are humane ways to use cloning to better people's lives.
I'm interested at where the line is/will be drawn.
Perhaps there's a way to clone to the body without actually making it live so the long transplant lists wont be long anymore? Idk much about it either but surely there are humane ways to use cloning to better people's lives.
I'm interested at where the line is/will be drawn.
Willchill
Blocktopia's Official Octopus
Call me what you will, but I'm okay with cloning people for the sole purpose of experimentation. I'd rather an unimportant human with no ties to the economy or other humans die from drug / treatment testing than someone who, when they die, will impact a large number of other human beings, be it emotionally, financially or otherwise. No, it isn't very nice, but some would change their minds on human clone experimentation if it meant a cure for cancer or mental diseases and stuff.
The same goes for war. The clones, without any emotional attachment to anyone except other clones, would die and their deaths would be much less significant compared to what we have at the moment. This would help us avoid economic situations like The Great Depression (only if the clones are cheap to make, only made for war and there are regulations on the amount of clones you can create and stuff.)
>oppresses psycopaths
Last edited:
Theodorre
The Fail Chipmunk
I wasn't oppressing psychopaths, I was stating a fact - they're mentally sick, and often they lack empathy. If they lack empathy, it's gonna be a lot easier to do something to a clone than, say, someone with normal levels of empathy.
Let me get this straight, are we talking that these clones are exactly the same as humans, just copies of humans that already exist? Or are they different in other ways?
Jayfeather
Gay Magician
I really just can not accept circular reasoning.
"Cloning is wrong because its immoral"
..?
"Its wrong because its playing God and that is wrong"
why is it wrong?
"because its playing God"
"Why should we" is not a fact
edit: didn't see your other post about it being your last post I just gleefully skipped down to the chat box after seeing no one else but timdood replied
