What Human Cloning May Lead To

Ok...this is not sci-fi, its not Star Wars...obviously you can't clone someone and create an army in a few months....

But what if you were the leader of a so-called "rogue nation", and had cloning technology available to you? You could, if you were patient, build an army, and indoctrinate your soldiers at a very young age to be fanatically loyal. This wouldn't be a product of genetics, but rather environment. You wouldn't even need a large army. You could, for example, train your clones as terrorists instead of conventional soldiers, but with a wicked difference from the terrorists we know now: They would be willing to die solely for the leader (you). You wouldn't need to hide behind religion...you could easily convince these clones that you ARE in fact God, and that their sole purpose in life is to carry out your orders.

Never mind the fact that the size of your army would be limited only by the provisions you could provide...

It wouldn't take long to generate this army, either. Yes, if you wanted an army like ours, you'd have to wait until your clones were 17 or 18. But, rules such as minimum age do not apply in your rogue nation....certainly not with people who've been under your absolute control since their conception. You could send soldiers into battle at age 10, if you wanted to. It might not be very effective, but remember, they're expendable. You can always clone more.

A few years, a few stem cells, and you could have an army more dangerous than any seen in history.

Every step towards human cloning is a step in this direction....it is a great danger.

 

Rayder-

Once upon a time, a group of men discovered a brand new way to generate power. They worked in secret, without anybody else knowing what they were doing. They had many debates about whether or not this power could be used to do harm, even though it would have enormous benefit to the world. They wanted to use this power for peace, but unfortunately, hotter heads prevailed, and under the guise of 'use it or lose it', these people were forced to use their skills to build bombs.

It was called the Manhattan Project.

The same argument can be applied to any new technology that is developed. There is potential for abuse in a car, a can opener, a vaccine.....progress cannot stop because of 'risks'-or else we all might as well go home and crawl under our beds. Your theory about an army being created is a little off, IMHO....it would take enormous resources to grow, educate, feed and house a clone army, and there are still so many unknowns in the technology that it is years, if not decades away before a normal, full-term human could be cloned. Banning the research because it might be abused will condemn millions who suffer from Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other ailments to most likely never be cured, and doom future generations of people to needless illnesses that cloning technology might otherwise eradicate.

Just my thoughts.

V-03

 

I understand that this is far off..I'm simply illustrating it as a possibility.

As for your nuclear analogy... if the designers of the Manhattan project had forseen things like the Cuban Missle crisis, 3 Mile Island, or Chernobyl, maybe they'dve had second thoughts.

Now, I'm all for nuclear power generation, its certainly better than coal fired electricity (although I personally wouldn't mind seeing more attention placed on solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal power.) But creating electricity from an atom is quite a different thing from manufacturing a human being.

Edit: and there are still so many unknowns in the technology that it is years, if not decades away before a normal, full-term human could be cloned

A scientist in Italy claims to have done it. I personally doubt the guy's credentials, but I guess we'll see in a few months, but the technology is not as far off as some think.

 

I know this may not sound proper for this board,but what about someone using cloning technology to create slaves for sexual purposes? Just imagine some lonely rich pervert being able to have a harem consisting of the clones of Marilyn Monroe and other sex symbols of the 20th century. Hey,the title of this thread is "What Human Cloning May Lead To",and it is something that could happen.

 

Can I just interject here?

What do people see clones as being? They aren't going to be monsters you know or stupid, sheep-like people or elite soldiers. Clones (ie. Clones of original people) are probably going to just be a copy of the original...

Darth-Raider: The thing is, is that you don't need a clone army to accomplish what you are talking about. You can do it with "original" people. It has been done before, with people being indoctrinated into believing that a certian thing is right and refusing to believe otherwise. You don't need clones for this....

I don't think cloning will amount to as much as say genetic enginerneering, but it will probably will still have a large impact on society. What will concern me more is if 'original' humans form a class system and see the clones as 'lower' human life forms...if that happens it will be a very sad day for the human race. Hopefully it is still a long way off.

Kit

 

I understand that you wouldn't need clones to do this. I'm saying it would be easier.

 

Why?

Why would it be easier with clones then 'original' humans? They still need to be born, they need mums and dads, clothing and so on. You would, however, have extra cost as they also need to be enginereed in a lab (rather then be concieved naturally, like many humans are).

Kit

 

Indoctrinating them, for one thing would be easier... and as for needing moms and dads...isn't the whole idea of human cloning based around NOT having a mom and dad?

 

May I ask? Have you read Brave New World?

Why would it be easier to indoctrinate clones rather then 'original' humans? What differences do you see in the way they are brought up/what will society do so that they will be easier to manipulate. Pyschological manipulation happens everyday to millions of people, so if they are used to it, shouldn't it be just as easy for someone with charisma and money to indoctrinate a normal person too.

If they don't have a mother (we'll leave out father for the moment), then how are they going to born? Scientists can only grow things so far in a lab. You would still need something to bring it through full gestation (Rather like Dolly the sheep's mum). How do you see clones being brought up? In domitories, or in homes, or where?

All I want is for you to expand what you see. That way can understand what you are thinking. At the moment you keep repeating the same thing and I just wanted to know what you see would happen in the future (how clones would be born, brought up and so forth)

Huggles
Kithera

 

I have, in fact, read Brave New World.. several times, in fact.

And, in fact, I think that as far as creating a human being, that's the eventual goal: creating a human completely in a lab. You say it cannot be done...but if you consider the rate at which technology develops, you'd have to concede that it would eventually be possible, if not likely, that you could have "manufactured" human beings, completely gestated in the lab.

As far as indoctrination goes, I guess I need to explain a little bit better what I meant. If you have complete control over a cloned person, you could see to it that they never learn independent thought...from day one you could convince them of whatever ideas you wanted to. Its far different than say, 1930's Germany, where propaganda was all over the place. I'm saying you wouldn't NEED a propaganda campaign because the clones, your tools to achieve whatever it is you are after, will already believe in your ideals completely. THAT'S what I mean by indoctrination being easier.

Edit: I wish I could study through hypnopaedia....it would make college much easier.

Edit 2: Except that according to Huxley, hypnopaedia only works for moral lessons...not practical knowledge. D'oh!

 

Having read a Brave New World too (and only recently), I now know where you are comming from.

I never did say that children could never be grown in a lab, or decanted so to speak. I just said that they can't at the moment. I will admit they might be in the future.

I still don't see how having a cloned person would make it easier to indoctrinate someone. You could have the same control over a 'original" human if you got them at a young age.

Yes, I wish I could learn by hypnopadia too!

Kit

 

Yes, but getting them at a young age could prove difficult. But getting a clone at a young age would not be. That's the difference I was trying to illustrate.

 

Okay, now I know where you are coming from. Although I would still have to disagree. I still believe that it is just as easy to indoctrinate young humans whatever their backgrounds into believing a certain thing.

 

I think part of his point is that with the clones this leader would essentially own them, no family, no school etc, just his personal training, of course, the ruler could just take the kids, but if he does that enough his people might get a bit upset and revolt. Also with the clones, you could be sure of similar strength , endurance, intelligence potential, instead of having to spend time going out and finding good young candiadates from the public.

Just trying to clarify. I am pretty open to cloning mainly because I don't think it will be used in this way. Most world leaders think in terms of a few years, no one is planning ahead to twenty years from now

 

Yes, FakeHandLuke has summed up my point pretty well. Thank you.

 

Interesting thought, Rayder, but I have to disagree. Even knowing about the problems, (and they knew about the risks of nuclear war) the participants in the manhattan project would still have done what they did if for no other reason than to prevent the axis from doing it first.

The point I am trying to make is that the worst-case scenario shouldn't be used to institute a ban on something that has potential for great good. The potential for great harm exists in everything; as I stated before cloning will only be as beneficial as the use to which it is put.

As far as Italian dude goes, I don't believe him for a second. To create an animal clone, it takes dozens of fertilizations and implantations with failures before you get a viable clone that takes. I have a hard time believe that this person managed to create dozens of HUMAN clone embryos without anybody knowing and experimented with implanting them in a woman before getting one that hasn't spontaneously aborted due to genetic abberation or unknown factors. It would simply be very hard to keep a secret.

Peace,

V-03

 

I also read about the Italian scientist whom claimed to have three clone-pregnancies; one subject cloned from an adult human being. Here is a link to an article about it:

Cloning Humans already a possibility?



Yet, think about cloning from the point of view of a Clone. Would it be nice to find out you were cloned; that another almost perfectly similar human being exists upon Earth? You are basically a copy - not unique; for the changes environment inflicts are minimal if compared to those genetic reproduction creates.

Also, I read about few scientists being in the verge of creating a fully working artificial womb; capable of reproducing human beings. Yet I have one question: Why are we trying to compete with nature?

 

A clone is an identical twin. When people think of clones, they should realize they are twins, not monsters or automatons.

If I discovered I was a clone, I don't think it'd shatter my world. In fact, it might not be as traumatic as it is for people who find out they're adopted...a clone wouldn't think he/she was "given away." I'd want to know who the original was and if there were others like me...just as adopted children eventually want to find their birth parents and siblings.

I don't think scientists are trying to "compete with nature." You could say that about any medical/scientific research, you could say that about artificial insemination and "test tube babies."

 

It was mentioned earlier that people are killed in cars, etc., and that if we let the worst-case scenario dominate, we wouldn't have these advances.

This is true, but there's not a lot of morality involved in the manufacture of a car. But with cloning, significant moral questions arise with many points of the process.

As for doing something that has the "potential" for a lot of good, I'd point out that the ends do not always justify the means, in fact, they rarely do. And, let's face it...we don't know for certain that there's anything to be gained from cloning...it's all theory. The trouble is, once you take a step towards cloning, you cannot undo that step later-you've set a precedent.

This is why (aside from the fact that it goes against many of my personal religious beliefs) I am against cloning.

 

Rayder-

The 'ends do not justify the means' speech has been one of the largest impediments to progress in human history. Why?? Because it is constantly used to muzzle those who believe the best in humanity, not the worst. While your argument that this technology can be abused has merit, I still maintain my point is valid: the technology will only be abused if people choose to abuse it. We have existed with close to 100,000 nuclear weapons on earth for over half a century, yet none of them have been detonated since America's single use. As far as the 'moral' quandry in cloning, and your example regarding the manufacture of a car, you are comparing apples and oranges. The old standby is 'cars aren't manufactured to kill people', although many die in automobile accidents every year nationwide-and some in deliberate murders involving vehicles. So we should ban cars because people get killed in them?? Be realistic here, no one is going to be cloning people for organ harvesting or army creation, the debate is about copying embryonic cells for medical research-a far cry from creating a full grown, adult human being. If you equate an embryo with a person, you are overvaluing one and undervaluing the other-your choice of course, but forcing that view upon others is not.

If the 'ends' in this case are the eradication of many fatal and debilitating human diseases, then why can't the 'means' be cloning? Because of your personal moral and religious beliefs? What right do you have to make that decision for everybody else?

The thing that really irks me about people who cite religion as the basis of their arguments is that they are incapable of separating themselves from the very moral hypocrisy they claim to be stamping out. The level of intolerance is phenomenal, even though Christianity (and I am citing the US as an example) preaches love and tolerance. Yet those who are most devoutly opposed to cloning tend to be the most religious, the Religious Right, the rather inappropriately named "Moral Majority", the 'Christian Coalition'. If the leaders of these movements are so devout and moral, why do they make so much money off of their movements?? I do not want these people dictating what kind of scientific breakthroughs will be allowed in this country...nor do I wish to listen to their glib statements about 'morality'-especially considering what's going on with the catholic church. Also, when challenged on why their way of doing things is better than others, then tend to be the most indignant and insistent that if you don't follow 'their way', you will be punished-as if that punishment is their to be meted out. The Bible clearly states that it isn't.

Cloning for medical research should be allowed with oversight and regulation, and strong legal consequences for abuse, not banned outright. The benefits are far too great to be ignored.

End of Novel.

V-03

 

Be realistic here, no one is going to be cloning people for organ harvesting

I ask YOU to be realistic here. If there's a market, do you really believe that someone won't exploit it?

The best advice I've ever been given was by a teacher in high school who told me to "follow the money trail, if you want to understand why society is the way it is." Follow the money trail here. No matter what part of cloning you ban, such as organ harvesting, sexual slaves (as someone suggested earlier), soldiers, or WHATEVER, there will be people who want those "products", and those who will be willing to provide, regardless the risk of being caught by "oversight."

Cloning for medical research should be allowed with oversight and regulation, and strong legal consequences for abuse, not banned outright.

Right. Cloning oversight..from the good people who brought you the IRS and the Postal Service. Come on.

 

"If the 'ends' in this case are the eradication of many fatal and debilitating human diseases, then why can't the 'means' be cloning? Because of your personal moral and religious beliefs? What right do you have to make that decision for everybody else?"


We have this right because we are a member of society. It does not matter where are beliefs came from, it only matters that they are our beliefs. It is called freedom of speech.

 

Rayder-

If oversight is totally useless, then every anesthesiologist in the country would be selling narcotics on the street because the 'useless oversight' of the government wouldn't be able to keep track of the phenomenal amounts of narcotics such as fentanyl which hospitals use on a daily basis. Selling drugs is a lucrative business. So why aren't they doing it in droves?? Because they get caught. By the government. Not always, but most of the time.

While there is no doubt truth in your words, I will say this for the third time: the negativity with which some things are done should not be used as an excuse to ban the progression of others. No-one is denying that money is the main motivator of our society, or that there are black-market risks in cloning. But I see the ability to grow organs from cells happening long before we are able to develop viable human clones-it is simply so much less complicated to grow a single organ than an entire person. We're not there yet, but such breakthroughs are the point of the research.

Have you stopped to consider the logistics of growing humans to maturity and then harvesting their organs??? It is much easier to simply drug someone and steal their organs as it happens nowadays than it is to attempt to hide a 'grow and harvest' operation, which is what you are talking about.

Anyway, I am getting off track. Cloning for research purposes should be allowed. And looking at the congressional resistance Bush has to passing his total cloning ban (especially from some of the most conservative members of his own party) it probably will be. If it doesn't happen in America, someone in europe or japan will develop the technology, and the US will then be exploited to a 't' in paying for it's benefits.

V-03

 

But I see the ability to grow organs from cells happening long before we are able to develop viable human clones

You just said that "organ farming" would not be a purpose of cloning in your previous post.

You spoke earlier about people's rights. What about my right to live in a society that does not approve of playing God? Or has that right disappeared in the face of technology?

 

Because it is constantly used to muzzle those who believe the best in humanity, not the worst.

Things like cloning also have the potential to bring out the worst in humanity. Some things are better left untouched.

I still maintain my point is valid: the technology will only be abused if people choose to abuse it.

And people will abuse it. That's not even a debatable point, to me. More like fact. People can and do rationalize just about anything they want when they feel their cause or work is justified.

Be realistic here, no one is going to be cloning people for organ harvesting or army creation, the debate is about copying embryonic cells for medical research-a far cry from creating a full grown, adult human being.

So you're able to see into the future and tell me that such things will never happen?

If the leaders of these movements are so devout and moral, why do they make so much money off of their movements??

As a Christian, I want no part of the "Moral Majority," and do not wish to be associated with it. There are many Christians who live up to Christian values and ideals.

I do not want these people dictating what kind of scientific breakthroughs will be allowed in this country...nor do I wish to listen to their glib statements about 'morality'-especially considering what's going on with the catholic church.

So a few people are able to speak for everyone? Interesting. Then I think you would have to agree that all it would take would be a few scientists doing what they want to take cloning far beyond what any of us could imagine or anticipate.

Cloning for medical research should be allowed with oversight and regulation, and strong legal consequences for abuse, not banned outright. The benefits are far too great to be ignored.

It would be taken too far. I don't see it as worth debating, because I see it as a certainty. I'm plenty willing to say, "I told you so," someday in the future.