The Genetic Photocopier.

[polymorphikos]

Whilst I realise that there have been several threads on the topic of cloning, I would like to set one up on a slightly different tact.

The physical, non-metaphysical, non-spiritual, conrete grounds against cloning appear to be the questions of what rights a total clone would have, and whether it could be done without any genetic mishaps that resulted in illness or disability.

Assuming that, as it probably will, genetics produces a perfectly-safe method of cloning a human being, and assuming that said human being would be given all the rights of a human being, and be treated perfectly normally (in the eyes of the law, at least), and also disregarding the fact that there would not be a great deal of point to this, what do you, as a person, feel about the ethical and moral dilemmas of cloning.

In other words, if you are against cloning on grounds other than a danger to the clone and the mostly-pointless (although there would be some uses, such as extremely-long colonisation missions wherin ships of embryos are sent to distant stars and robots grow and educate them) feel of it, then why do you, as a person, not like it?

Conversely, how is it, applying the same standards and ignoring or including the same circumstances as above listed, defensible?

I won't voice my opinion yet, because I don't want to side-track the debate with rebuttals.

[littlemissattitude]

I'm going to have to think about this for awhile. However, I have to say that my first reaction is that we've got enough people who've gotten here the usual way. How many billion people are there on Earth now? Living on what percentage of the land area? Now, I've heard that it would be theoretically possible to locate the entire population of the world in the state of Texas with only a population density of an average Western European nation. I don't know how true that is, but I know I sure wouldn't want to live in those conditions. Maybe that's just my bias because I've grown up in California, where even if you live in the most densely populated parts of the state, you don't have to travel more than an hour or an hour and a half to get to open country. I like having the amenities of living in a city, by definition densely populated, but I like to know that I don't have far to go to get out of the city, as well.

On the other hand, Western nations seem to be having a problem with fertility presently. I don't know if that is a real problem, or only a perceived problem for those Westerners who are not wild about the idea of being outnumbered by folks from the developing nations - and believe me, this question does come up in discussions of world-wide population distribution. I've heard it before. But, if fertility is a real problem and starts manifesting in the rest of the world as it has in the West, there might come a time when cloning might be seen as one of several logical options for perpetuating the species.

Still, the fact remains that I just feel squeamish at the idea of cloning human beings. Assuming safe procedures that yield healthy human beings with all the rights of humans conceived in the usual way, there's still just an "ick" factor for me when thinking about clones.

Even though I understand perfectly well that identical twins are nothing but natural clones.

But, having said all that - much more than I thought I'd have to say, off the top of my head, when I began - this is all a quick first impression, and I really have to think about it some more.

[I, Brian]

Good philosophical question.

The expectations that dead children and relatives can be recreated, is a real psychology danger of the process of human cloning, in my opinion.

[Princess Ivy]

I won't read any replies until I have. Don't want undue influence.
But I cannot see the point in cloning. If as you say a clone has the same rights as any other person, then they could not clone to get spare parts. if it is a perfect clone, it would therefore have the same genetic modifications as the original, so no medical advantage there.
As for colonisation, the whole point of it is to move people away from this planet, so why make more people to send, only to leave the population problems that this planet already has?
For 'replacing' a lost child? well that is not possible. for no matter how perfect physically, we are products of our environments and the child would be different any way. It would just be sick sentimentilism.
In fact, to replace any lost loved one. Why? the clone would be a baby! how could a baby daddy replace the original thing. And, loss is a part of life. We have to deal with it.
Then, If we simply cloned, and did not reproduce naturally, the population would become stagnant, with no new blood or ideas to pull us forward. And if we continued reproducing (which we would have no imperitive to do as we could always just 'replace' anyone who died), again, the population would become unmanageble.

[polymorphikos]

Note the rules. The pointlessness of whole-human cloning has been adressed. The question relates to the act of cloning itself, in a vacuum, as it were.

[Princess Ivy]

as nothing can be done in a vaccume, that is not the way life goes, this would be completely pointless.
There are always factors involved. The most looming being WHY? why would anyone want to create a clone. If there is no point to it other than that we can do it. It would be stupid and pointless. It is the other factors (such as medical) which make us want to create clone, or human rights that make us not want to.

[polymorphikos]

Whilst I understand this, these, along with arguments of safety, are the only arguments that can be considered in absolute impartiality, without any religious, spiritual etcetera influences being required. Set these aspects aside. What would you, for example, think of cloning if it was safe, and there was a niche ( a nice niche, not a harvesting niche) for them. I cannot think of such a niche, but if one existed, and it wasn't too important to be incontestible, then what would you think of the moral, religious, spiritual, metaphysical features of cloning, and whether, in relation to them, it would be okay to whole-body clone?

[Princess Ivy]

To pin me down, no! I would not clone. As I said before it would be pointless. Then there is the point that while we may be able to make that clone safe, we could not know the effects on that clones offspring. And as I do believe that everyone has a soul, I would not want a souless creature wandering around, and while we could clone a body, souls are another matter. Religiously, we are not God, and should not pretend to be. Moraly, just because we can, doesn't me we should.

[polymorphikos]

If a human being were grown from the embryonic state, then why would they not posses a soul? Gestated from a human egg, fertilised with human DNA, they would be in all ways human except that they were grown in an artificial womb, though in probability they would be gestated inside a woman for ease. Therefore, a clone is exactly like a "regular" person, soul inclusive, save that somebody had a say in how they looked.

Morally, if there are no bad after-effects then we have not hurt anyone. As for playing God, destroy everything you own save for your body, and you will be exactly as God intended you.

[dwndrgn]

Originally Posted by polymorphikos

Morally, if there are no bad after-effects then we have not hurt anyone. As for playing God, destroy everything you own save for your body, and you will be exactly as God intended you.

There will always be bad after-effects. Mutations, accidents, and rising of recessive genes all would happen - no matter what - it is the nature of nature. There is no such thing as perfect. And yes, you will hurt people - being cloned or knowing there are clones will undoubtedly damage human mental health.

I agree with Princess Ivy, there is no reason to clone human beings. I can understand doing organs or other tissues for medical reasons, but the entire body? It would just be a waste of time and effort.

[Lacedaemonian]

I do not see a real purpose of creating a clone. Currently the talk is that clones can offer medical solutions to their living original. I do not see why somebody should be given life with the sole purpose of supporting the life of a doomed original. I would always consider this debate with the question, what if I was the clone?

[polymorphikos]

I am going to go kick myself with a giant boot.

This isn't about the usefulness of clones, nor their mutations. If, if, I say, hypothetically, a completely unmutated, genetically normal human could be created by cloning, one with all the rights of a naturally born human being, disregarding the fact that it would be useless and pointless, then would it be okay?

And for the purpose of giving children to infertile couples who don't want to resort to sperm banks, then it might, might, have one use, but we aren't talking about that.

Is the actual act of cloning wrong?


If so, why?

[littlemissattitude]

Sigh.

NO. If there were no rights issues, and there were no medical issues aside from those any other human being might be subject to, then I would not call it wrong.

But I still feel squemaish about it. Sorry.

[Lacedaemonian]

But what would the purpose of cloning be?

[polymorphikos]

Bugger-all really, except for creating nifty biological robots out of animals, and maybe the fertility-treatment and colonisation ideas.

Clone colonisation would actually work, if you wanted to set-up a human out-post to ensure survival of the species, and not to simple shift people elsewhere.

Really, though, parts-cloning in vats and gene thrapy are the only practical ideas I can come-up with. Which is why the whole debate is so silly. That was really the point of this thread, to show how silly the whole issue is. Didn't work quite so well as I'd hoped, though.