TacoCube
Member
being able to clone yourself would be pretty badass. but it'd be weird at the same time.
Human Cloning
- Thread starter Dene
- Start date
nck
Regular
with a million people having brad pitt's genes in their blood stream, goodluck to those who arent as pretty
kinda off topic, but current medical research is in the long run making the human race weaker. for example people with generic heart conditions are treated in ways that were not possible naturally(with the aid of high tech stuff) they live on rather than dying at a young age and reproduce to pass their genes on. so we have this situation where normal evolution does not take place as not only the strongest survive, and in the long run, the human race is "evolving" into a weaker specie.
as far as that is concerned, i would say cloning is not beneficial
but i would still love to see cloning made possible because just because we have the ability to clone brad pitt doesnt mean that we have to do it that way. producing organs would be pretty lovely as most of us today are concerned about living a happy life rather than humanity's future blahblah.
kinda off topic, but current medical research is in the long run making the human race weaker. for example people with generic heart conditions are treated in ways that were not possible naturally(with the aid of high tech stuff) they live on rather than dying at a young age and reproduce to pass their genes on. so we have this situation where normal evolution does not take place as not only the strongest survive, and in the long run, the human race is "evolving" into a weaker specie.
as far as that is concerned, i would say cloning is not beneficial
but i would still love to see cloning made possible because just because we have the ability to clone brad pitt doesnt mean that we have to do it that way. producing organs would be pretty lovely as most of us today are concerned about living a happy life rather than humanity's future blahblah.
Dene
Premium Member
I don't necessarily think cloning would be cheaper, but I see no reason for it to cost more. Surrogacy is so expensive because of the payment of the surrogate. This payment would be removed with cloning. IVF is so expensive because there is a large fail rate, so repeat attempts are usually expected. Each attempt costs in excess of $10,000.
The great benefit of cloning is that it would be an all-round solution to the problem, and then as methods improve and accuracy increases the costs would come down. While we banter around with all the silliness no progress is made.
I may as well just make it clear that my own personal view is pro-cloning. I'll go more into detail why I made this thread at a later stage, but for now I can't be bothered.
You clearly do not understand how cloning would work.
Weaker in what sense? By living longer and being the most dominant and advanced species on the planet?
Last edited:
nck
Regular
there is a reason why we say that genes can affect your looks(duh)
you may not grow up looking exactly like the person you are cloned from but to say that a child looks like his/her parents is not purely based on psychological factors
by weaker i mean there are and will be more people with generic diseases as people with these diseases produce instead of dying off like in the past (dont get me wrong, i think this is great in the sense of equality but...)
im not comparing human to other species but to humans if we dont have technological support
there is a reason for you to read the thing you quote and try to comprehend before you quote it and ask things like"Weaker in what sense?"
Last edited:
Dene
Premium Member
Dude I was trying to be nice but it's on.
Why in hell would a million people get access to Brad Pitt's DNA? We are talking about cloning oneself, not cloning the hottest guy on the planet a million times over so that all the pretty girls have a pretty guy to stand next to them. Also, as per DavidWoner's post, not everyone is going to look exactly the same because they have the same DNA. Environment plays a key role in development.
I read what you said, but I didn't think it made any sense, nor do I still think it makes any sense.
Firstly, by "generic" I assume you mean "genetic" (please learn to spell, and also learn some grammatical skills, before you come here trying to own people).
Secondly, why is it that by keeping people alive they are going to spread their genetic disease? What diseases do you have in mind exactly? Most people with serious genetic diseases still do not stay alive long enough to reproduce. If they do, they would have whether we could do anything about the disease or not. Before you try to counter argue I expect you to provide a good example of a genetic disease that would otherwise kill, but due to us keeping these people alive they are able to reproduce and spread their disease.
Thirdly, in what way does living longer compared to previous generations of humans involve other species? I mean, sure I did mention that in the second part of the sentence. But the first part of the sentence still stands, and I am yet to see you attempt to counter argue that point.
Please, give me ONE GOOD REASON why we are becoming "weaker" and not stronger. I cannot see any disadvantage to us gaining more knowledge about genetic diseases, possibly to the point where we can eradicate them altogether through negative eugenics.
Why in hell would a million people get access to Brad Pitt's DNA? We are talking about cloning oneself, not cloning the hottest guy on the planet a million times over so that all the pretty girls have a pretty guy to stand next to them. Also, as per DavidWoner's post, not everyone is going to look exactly the same because they have the same DNA. Environment plays a key role in development.
I read what you said, but I didn't think it made any sense, nor do I still think it makes any sense.
Firstly, by "generic" I assume you mean "genetic" (please learn to spell, and also learn some grammatical skills, before you come here trying to own people).
Secondly, why is it that by keeping people alive they are going to spread their genetic disease? What diseases do you have in mind exactly? Most people with serious genetic diseases still do not stay alive long enough to reproduce. If they do, they would have whether we could do anything about the disease or not. Before you try to counter argue I expect you to provide a good example of a genetic disease that would otherwise kill, but due to us keeping these people alive they are able to reproduce and spread their disease.
Thirdly, in what way does living longer compared to previous generations of humans involve other species? I mean, sure I did mention that in the second part of the sentence. But the first part of the sentence still stands, and I am yet to see you attempt to counter argue that point.
Please, give me ONE GOOD REASON why we are becoming "weaker" and not stronger. I cannot see any disadvantage to us gaining more knowledge about genetic diseases, possibly to the point where we can eradicate them altogether through negative eugenics.
jackdexter75
Veteran
I say no to anything that has to do with Human Cloning. btw There is a difference between a clone and a human... that should be obvious..
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
jackdexter75
Veteran
Oh, you're cool...?:fp
shelley
chang
Easy: Myopia (not a disease I guess but certainly a condition that is hereditary). Back in the day people with bad vision would have been eaten by saber tooth tigers. Now with corrective lens technology they can all live to pass on their genes.
Dene
Premium Member
I know you're only playing with me shelley, but in case others don't pick up on that I need to explicitly make clear that this is not a legitimate disease for the present purposes. Firstly, it's not "serious", secondly it doesn't kill as of itself (so death is not guaranteed).
irontwig
Veteran
I don't really see why it would be immoral; all you get is is twins with different birth days (which you get naturally anyway, my grandmother and her twin sister were born on different days).
shelley
chang
Myopia by itself doesn't kill, but without modern technology it certainly reduces an individual's reproductive fitness. If we're dealing with evolutionary forces, that's all that's needed. Death isn't explicitly required, it just happens to be the most obvious and effective way to reduce reproductive fitness.
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
shelley: I'm not sure myopia is genetic at all - there are probably genetic factors involved, but I think most cases tend to be based on behavior. At least in my case, a childhood spent mostly looking at books (as opposed to relatively far-away things) is almost certainly the cause.
Oh, you still don't understand...? The only important difference between a clone and an identical twin is that a clone would be born many years later. I don't know how you could say a clone isn't human.
masterofthebass
Premium Member
Sickle Cell Anemia.
Haemophilia.
Plenty of diseases are considered "treatable" now due to modern medicine, even though natural selection would dictate they be eradicated.
blade740
Mack Daddy
I have nothing against it. I, like many others in this thread, don't believe in any sort of sanctity of life. The "soul" is nothing more than the product of a conscious mind (which a clone would have, same as any human being).
Now, obviously, cloning is an expensive procedure, and it's not the kind of thing you would just use willy-nilly. The medical uses would be incredible (though I agree that a cloned baby is still a baby, and to raise a baby for the soul purpose of slaughtering it and harvesting its organs is wrong).
Now, obviously, cloning is an expensive procedure, and it's not the kind of thing you would just use willy-nilly. The medical uses would be incredible (though I agree that a cloned baby is still a baby, and to raise a baby for the soul purpose of slaughtering it and harvesting its organs is wrong).
MTGjumper
Veteran
I was under the impression that sickle cell anemia hadn't been "eradicated" as it offered resistance to malaria, so individuals, especially in Africa, were at a selective advantage if they actually had the sickle cell anemia.
CubesOfTheWorld
Veteran
No. It would be unsafe.
Edmund
Veteran
No
beingforitself
Regular
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 52
Yet another proponent of my ingenious identical twin eradication scheme.
shelley
chang
Is there now? What is this obvious difference, for those who aren't as enlightened as you are? What do you call it if it's not a human?
Similar threads
