What Human Cloning May Lead To

I'm rather scared of cloning. Sure, it may help fight the war against disease and such, but it's scary when you think what it can lead to.

More and more clones are created. Not out of humans, but from all kinds of animals. And even if many nations of the world ban human cloning, there's always the chance that somehow, somewhere, somebody will get the technology, and use it for their own means.

I'm confident that nothing like such will happen in my lifetime, but if human cloning, or any kind of cloning for that matter got into the wrong hands, the future could look rather grim.

Anyone have any thoughts?


(sorry if this is redundant)



ST

 

Maybe they can clone me a copy of Natalie Portman and Jennifer Love Hewitt?

Just kidding

I just wanted to drop a line before this thread gets LOCKED!!

 

It's been done before, right?

Ooops



ST

 

Cloning is like anything else... it can be used for good or bad. Religion has been used for a lot of bad things... should we ban it?

 

It just creates human duplicates, right? It's not like it can rapidly produce super-soldiers...

 

No, you need the super-soldier serum to make super-soldiers.

 

Star Wars! The Clone Wars! [face_shocked] [face_shocked]


























Oh ya, that's not real, nevermind



ST

 

Cloning (introduced by the fully-operational KloneLab version 6.0 created by Twin4U in 2027--oh, wait. That hasn't happened yet ) will--umm, might --force massive revisions of our basic societal structure. The 'family' base would be challenged by an (assumedly) government-controlled, biological robot-creating, program to clone humans, assumedly with genetic enhancements, and thus ultimately a super race.

The only thing I want cloned are individual organs. Cloning entire human beings is just plain stupid, besides being an unsound practice, and causes way more problems than it solves. If it solves any problems at all.

 

Also cloning someone doesn't mean they'll necesarilly be an exact duplicate when they grow to the age of the donor. Who we are depends on more factors than just genetics. For instance someone could clone you, and that clone could be physically different because of his diet...you could clone Hitler, for instance(If we had any genetic material to go by, which we don't really), and raise the "new" Hitler to be totally tolerant and righteous.

 

Ummm, what was that line from Jurassic Park from Ian?? Wait here it is, with my own little twist......"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man plays God, and creates man, and BAM! BRAVE NEW WORLD."

You should read it by Aldous Huxley.

Here is a breif summary.

A global nine years war has taken place. This war was so brutal and tiresome, that the people opted to control the world's actions through a means of science. "People were ready to have even their appetites controlled then. Anything for a quiet life"

Brave New World takes place in 632 A.F., numerous years after civilization started to be controlled. Civilization is controlled though conditioning and hatchery. Everyone is brought into civilization though a test tube, "the operation undergone voluntarily for the good of society." The D.H.C. (the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning) decides which of the five castes in society the test tube babies will belong to. At a young age, the babies are conditioned to think and act certain ways depending on which caste they will belong to through a means of environmental exposure as babies, hypnopaedia, and other methods.

In order to keep the civilization from engaging in future wars, society must be happy. Ridding of religion and morals, and allowing sex and drugs without remorse makes this happiness... "God isn't compatible with machinery and scientific medicine, and universal happiness."

The beginning chapters describe this brave new world as the D.H.C. gives a group of children a tour of the facility. The reader meets Lenina Crowne who had been dating Henry Foster for some time, and starts dating Bernard Marx to prove she is not engaging in courtship, which is unheard of in the civilization. Bernard and Lenina go on a vacation to the New Mexico reservations, and meet Linda and her son John. Bernard discovers that Linda was impregnated by the D.H.C., and thus John is his son. Bernard and Lenina bring John and Linda back to civilization with them for research purposes.

Bernard learns that the D.H.C. is about to exile him for his 'uncivilized' behavior when he and Lenina return to civilization. "..He (Bernard) has proved himself an enemy of society, a subverter, ... of all order and stability, a conspirator against civilization itself." Bernard calls John and Linda from the next room, and they call upon the director as son and wife. Bernard is saved from exilation.

Bernard becomes very popular in the civilization due to the connections he has with John the savage. Bernard's friend Helmholtz befriends John and they share literature with each other. John does not like the civilization, and becomes more disgusted with each day that goes by.

Lenina grows an infatuated passion for John, and constantly seeks him out. John thinks of Lenina very highly until she makes advances at him that are against his morals. He gets extremely upset one evening when Lenina makes a sexual advance towards him. "The savage pushed her away with such force that she staggered and fell."

John's mother dies shortly after his violent confrontation with Lenina. This event set off a tick in John's head, and he get's crazed. He lectures the civilization during a soma distribution process. Some of his statements include: "Don't you want to be free and man? Don't you even understand what manhood and freedom are?"

Helmholtz, Bernard, and John are called to Mustapha Mond's study. Mustapha exiles Helmholtz and Bernard for their 'uncivilized' behavior. John is forced to stay so he can continue to be tested.

John flees to a deserted lighthouse near London. There he goes about purifying himself and practicing religion. "From time to time he stretched out his arms as though he were on the cross, and held them thus through long minutes of an ache that gradually increased till it became a tremulous and excruciating agony."

Spectators from civilization accidentally stumble upon John during one of his self-torture purifying acts for God. The word is spread around, and John is the craz

 

I don't think I could ever support cloning. It might be used for good things like recreating a lost loved or helping someong close to death be reborn, but it would be used for bad. Designer babies and super-soldiers are just the beginning. They could also create human bodies that they would only use for organ harvesting. I think cloning could be one of the most disgusting perversions of nature and science and I don't see how any good can come from it. But that's just MHO.

 

I don't see it a major problem unless we somehow give them accelerated aging. *Then* we have problems.

 

Someone explain this to me: A person in my class told me that they were against cloning because of their religious convictions, convictions that lead to the belief that a clone has no soul. Now where is this specified?

 

I'm not sure if human cloning will ever be commonplace. It may only be confined to those with a lot of money and time. I don't like the idea anyway there are too many awful scenarios that may come true.

Here's some of my ideas:

1. Cloning is accepted and is used as another fertility treatment, however the success rate and cost prohibits the widespread use of the technology. After all, we've been using IVF for 25 years now and the success rate is less than 20% for that more natural technology. It is also hugely expensive. The only reproductive use will be those who are totally infertile and a few selfish individuals who have enough money.

2. Cloning becomes widespread and leads to an underclass of humanity due to religious AND non-religious people discriminating against clones on the grounds they have no soul and are therefore less human.

3. Many, many, many years into the future, males are not being required to reproduce and are redundant- there are fewer men around. Might not be such a bad thing. Pubs and professional sport get very boring though.

4. Humanity becomes totally unrecognisable due to gene manipulation. Some people opt for altering genes for longer life, more strength, greater height etc etc etc. Cloning is the only way to ensure that those traits are passed on to offspring. Natural conception causes all sorts of problems due to the incompatibility of the human genome which has been so altered that the children of this natural conception are born deformed.

5. Cloning introduces a whole range of disease unknown to science. Clones suffer from genetic disorders that cannot be cured or even understood.

I could go on all day. I think it's a big mistake to clone humans.

 

Just a question, but why is everyone so terrified that human cloning will occur in great excess? You're jumping to a few conclusions here...

 

Most scientists who are interested in cloning are not interested in making designer people.

What most in fact want to be able to do is is to identify diseases and dibilitating mutations down to the level of DNA where it all starts. At that point you can make a nice potent vaccine to combat such things.

As a further step you may be able to grow a heart from your own DNA if you nedd one later on. That last statement does not mean you clone a whole body to be used as an organ farm. You don't need to grow a whole body just to make someone a new heart.

My fear would be that we try to stifle it so no genetic research is not allowed. If that happens you will have someone out there make a "Frankenstien's Monster". If genetic sciences are embraced, then regulating laws and a policing of genetic conduct can be done to prevent genetic horrors.

Maybe people are afraid to live forever (the weight of years concept of getting bored after too many centuries) but I don't think anyone would mind an extra century or two that genetic study could provide.

 

Something I thought of just as posted that: right now all it would take is a bachelors or masters degree and a 100,000 dollar laboratory and you can make Frankenstien, or worse yet, a horrid genetic virus capable of killing masses of people.

 

My personal thoughts on the matter is that my first idea that cloning will happen but it will be too costly and not reliable enough to make an impact on society.

The problem with science is that 99% of scientists are responsible, but there is always the odd rogue that will ignore popular opinion and do what they want. Case in point the Italian scientist who says he has already impregnated a woman with a clone. Scientists have an edict they live by - publish or perish. If they don't prove their worth to the community they are out of a job. Publications are their way of surviving. This can lead to those whacky publicity seeking scientists to try anything for recognition even if it leads to notoriety. You can't trust all scientists exactly the same way as you can't trust all cops, politicians, sportspeople etc. Human nature.

 

$100,000 is nowhere near enough to run a lab.

Anyway, needless to say, I'm really concerned that the public's fear of something they don't understand because they've only read distorted articles about it in the popular media is going to stopper up a really hot and promising field.

 

No, its not enough to run a good lab properly. But it is more than enough to grow a vicious virus.

Whateve the cost its just another reason to keep genetic science going so as to have a possible counter against such things.

 

Cloning will lead to... people hopefully not thinking that AOTC is a dumb title.




Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Fact: You cannot make a clone of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, etc. etc.

Fact: Clong does not lead to a bunch of soldiers trained to kill and of a single mind.


People are so dumb sometimes. The argument they bring up is usually cloning a dictator from the past. This is impossible because you need a genetic source material from a LIVING being, not some long dead dictator. I think cloning could be good and bad. But as was stated before, I don't think this will lead to 'designer' children. Those who would misuse this technology will never see any of it. Considering no scientist outside of Europe and America(my opinion) knows how to clone. Religious folk are worried about what could happen. They'd rather the human race die out because of disease than let progress advance. It's like a drug, you can put all the rules and laws on it you want, but there's no way to stop it one it starts. This has been an opinion brought to you by FID.

 

Better medicinal techniques. However, the technology will have to be very guarded. Cloning just like every other technology can be abused. As long as it is not abused I fine with it.... BUt then there's the matter of the definition of "abuse". I guess as long as they don't start making clone societies it's alright

 

Hey ST,

Cloning will be as good or bad as the uses it is put to. Research into curing fatal and debilitating diseases through the use of embryonic cloning may prove to be vital in the quest to understand, and cure, many human ailments. The counter-argument, that the technology will be abused, can be said about new discovery in this world. Cloning will not be done to create full-grown humans, the technology is too flawed right now and it is unethical, but cloning for medical research, of pre-fertilized stem cells or embryonic stem cells, should be allowed. The benefits could be enormous.

By the way, there is a thread "Bush and Cloning" which has some very hot debate on this topic....I'll see if I can bump it up (especially since I started it).

V-03

 

There will always be unscrupulous elements in every facet of society trying to abuse technology. That doesn't mean we should start banning everything.

Bans are just a way of saying, "We lack self-control, we lack moderation, please take this right away from us..." because it's far easier to ban something than it is to learn moderation. That is the real challenge.

Democracy and the trust that democracy places in society, to learn on their own how to be accountable and responsible, is not being protected when we institute government bans.

That being said, the greatest likelihood is that federal funding of research involving cloning will be banned. That means that government may decide not to endorse cloning with public funds. However, that doesn't mean that cloning itself will be banned outright. Private funding, revenues from other areas, etc. will continue to fund cloning research such as that with embryonic stem cells.

If the public cannot agree in a majority consensus that their tax dollars shouldn't go towards helping fund cloning research, we cannot lawfully expect it to be used. However, I do believe some democratic process is in order, such that the people should have the right to decide that in a democratic process.

Bush tends to make lots of unilateral declarations or "edicts" about all kinds of different issues which he portrays as "moral debates"... but ultimately these do have to pass before Congress and also are subject to interpretation by the judicial branch.

If you are personally opposed to cloning, that's one thing... and I don't believe your dollars should be used towards something you don't believe in... but others do. Cloning is not a moral debate for me.

With that in mind, however, I think there are huge misconceptions about the implications and uses of cloning, as well as understanding the methodology and limitations. Even so, I'm an advocate of self-awareness and moderation, and I think it's the scientific community's responsibility to have a line of ethics.

Science is a secular discipline. It bears no favor to and owes no allegiance to any particular religious doctrine... and shouldn't be required to follow a specific non-secular dogma. If it were, the scientific process would be unduly influenced, biased and therefore hindered... as it has been in ages past. I say this because most of the "moral dilemma" with cloning stems from beliefs or opinions about life based on religious doctrines/dogma.