Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BlackDragonShadow
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 19:43:00 -
[1]
If you created a clone of you wouldn't it just be like having an identical twin? They would have they're own personality and view on the world. Why are people against cloning?
|
Bestofworst
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 19:44:00 -
[2]
Because people believe that playing God is not our job. (or some sort of.. idk.) ---- My Music
Anything I say is only what I think. If you have a problem with me, take it up with me. |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 19:47:00 -
[3]
Because it MAN playing GOD!!
Only danger I see from cloning would be a waning in the diversity of the gene pool that may even lead to mankind being forced to reproduce by cloning because all natural children turn out to be inbred degenerates. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
BlackDragonShadow
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 19:47:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Bestofworst Because people believe that playing God is not our job. (or some sort of.. idk.)
Yeah but we've been doing that since the advent of modern medicine.
|
Bestofworst
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 19:49:00 -
[5]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow
Originally by: Bestofworst Because people believe that playing God is not our job. (or some sort of.. idk.)
Yeah but we've been doing that since the advent of modern medicine.
Unless it made someone rich, they don't care. ---- My Music
Anything I say is only what I think. If you have a problem with me, take it up with me. |
Salhauler
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:04:00 -
[6]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow
Originally by: Bestofworst Because people believe that playing God is not our job. (or some sort of.. idk.)
Yeah but we've been doing that since the advent of modern medicine.
We've been manipulating nature for our own benefit long before modern medicine. On the ethics issue I believe it stems more from the reasons for wanting to cloning something rather than the act of cloning itself and it important to distinguish between full body cloning with a brain and cloning body parts. Replacing a dead loved one for example would be unethical and weird. Clonining specific organs (not a whole body) to replace damaged ones would be fine.
The religious are likely to kick up a fuss but since their assertions are unfounded their views can be ignored.
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:10:00 -
[7]
Most people are against cloning, because they like sex better. A lot.
|
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:18:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Abrazzar Because it MAN playing GOD!!
Only danger I see from cloning would be a waning in the diversity of the gene pool that may even lead to mankind being forced to reproduce by cloning because all natural children turn out to be inbred degenerates.
Pretty much, most of mankind has the arrogance to attach a face to god and preach about what he's like. They also have the arrogance to assume that he does in fact exist.
I however am skeptical, and all of you should be as well if you even dare call yourselves intelligent. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god, and that applies to EVERYONE.
On to the issue at hand cloning, much like inbreeding, it has the capability of either eliminating genetic problems or causing rapid decay in our gene pool. This is purely based on the quality of the genes being cloned. If they choose only to clone a good set of genes then it will be pure cloning. This would change the human race.
I have considered the various theories that relate to immortality and am at a loss as to how to transfer ones consciousness from one brain to another. If I clone my brain as it is now, much like taking a picture, and transfer it somewhere else, is that other individual really me? Or is it the me from a few seconds ago. Does my current body die? is it a true transfer? not necessarily. If the body is forced to die will my consciousness be transferred to the new body? not necessarily. The safest bet seems to be that the new me is the old me from a few seconds ago, but still not "me". Therefor cloning at best will be good for replacing body parts or just as it sounds having a look alike. What needs to be figured out is how to move consciousness from one place to another. Some call it the soul, others think of it as a spiritual body. If no such thing truly exists and it's just the result of our brains functions, then no such transfer can take place even if you copy or clone the brain. The other individual will still be the same but different.
Quite a paradigm. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:31:00 -
[9]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow Why are people against cloning?
BECAUSE OF FALCONRELIGION !
Oh, and there's that other thing, where you grow a clone exclusively for its organs, so most people (which are squeamish little moral-burdened bastards) would equate that with murder.
I mean, seriously... just think of PETA(animals). Imagine its counterpart PETC(lones).
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:32:00 -
[10]
It's cheaper to do it the old fashioned way so, if you just want to make new life, there doesn't seem to be any reason for clones. It is also better to create something new instead of an copy even with artificial means of creating life. These things don't exactly make cloning unethical, but they raise the question what would the motivation for cloning be. When people come up with uses for clones, things start to get unethical/questionable. Are we going to start farming clones for spare parts, maybe create an army of soldiers you can treat as things instead of people or maybe bring back to life the dead daughter of a billionaire. I'm sure cloning will happen in a small scale no matter what, especially if transferring your consiousness becomes an option, but there doesn't seem to be compelling reasons to allow it as a norm/large scale.
|
|
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:32:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow Why are people against cloning?
BECAUSE OF FALCONRELIGION !
Oh, and there's that other thing, where you grow a clone exclusively for its organs, so most people (which are squeamish little moral-burdened bastards) would equate that with murder.
I mean, seriously... just think of PETA(animals). Imagine its counterpart PETC(lones).
Unfortunetely if we go purely by the notion of the question of "is it living" It technically is murder.
If it was a clone that lacked a functioning brain and soul, then it would be considered legally dead despite its organs and body parts being "alive"
So that's it right there. The clone would have to not have a functioning brain that allows it to behave just as a normal human. |
THE L0CK
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:33:00 -
[12]
Also there's the whole cloning mindless soulless shells with certain blood types so they can be used to transplant any body part you want.
But deep down most of the issues are coming from the religious sector although so far are being held up in court.
But really honestly, we breed enough as humans to the point of over population as it is, do we really need to speed things up with cloning?
Originally by: Whitehound
If I think, but I do not.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:34:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow Why are people against cloning?
BECAUSE OF FALCONRELIGION !
Oh, and there's that other thing, where you grow a clone exclusively for its organs, so most people (which are squeamish little moral-burdened bastards) would equate that with murder.
I mean, seriously... just think of PETA(animals). Imagine its counterpart PETC(lones).
Meh. When you create the clone without any higher brain functions, you'd just have a heap of meat. Anything other than the vegetative nervous system isn't needed anyways. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: THE L0CK Also there's the whole cloning mindless soulless shells with certain blood types so they can be used to transplant any body part you want.
But deep down most of the issues are coming from the religious sector although so far are being held up in court.
But really honestly, we breed enough as humans to the point of over population as it is, do we really need to speed things up with cloning?
We would be better off pursing cybernetics and replacing our biological parts with mechanical ones. I personally would much rather replace my organs with mechanical parts or eliminate a need for most of them entirely. If I didn't require sleep, food, or using the bathroom, think of all the extra time I would have to work, learn, or have fun. Mankind as a whole would be much more productive. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:37:00 -
[15]
I'd have absolutely no qualms cloning myself, then giving the "kill him" order when I need some replacement organs and the clone is old enough for that to be viable. Even if it might be sentient and have the capacity to learn just as well as I did when I was young (not that anybody would bother trying to teach it anything). I made it, I own it, I can do whatever the hell I want with it. For all intents and purposes, it's livestock.
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Akita T I'd have absolutely no qualms cloning myself, then giving the "kill him" order when I need some replacement organs and the clone is old enough for that to be viable. Even if it might be sentient and have the capacity to learn just as well as I did when I was young (not that anybody would bother trying to teach it anything). I made it, I own it, I can do whatever the hell I want with it. For all intents and purposes, it's livestock.
The true problem with this idea is that we aren't sure about the concept of consciousness and souls. If he his differs from yours, then he is a separate being despite looking exactly like you. Similar to your identical twin rather than a clone. Parents aren't entitled to killing their children even though they brought them into this world. Brothers aren't entitled to killing each other even when identical. Your clone would have to lack his own free will and consciousness. Which would essentially render him a vegetable, which removes the idea of considering him alive.
Whether you agree or not, that is the current concept. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:46:00 -
[17]
Originally by: rValdez5987 The true problem with this idea is that we aren't sure about the concept of consciousness and souls.
Souls might exist, but so could just about anything else. Lacking definite proof either way, we can safely assume souls do not exist. If they do... well, bugger.
Basically... it doesn't matter. I matter, everybody else (not just including, but ESPECIALLY my clone) only matters as long as they suit my purposes Altruism is only another form of egoism... a long-term planning, smart form of egoism Love ? Again, egoism. Since we know we're not immortal, RIGHT NOW the only "way" for us to acheive imortality is genetically, via our offspring. Giving your life for a loved one ? Egoism, again. Or stupidity.
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:50:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: rValdez5987 The true problem with this idea is that we aren't sure about the concept of consciousness and souls.
Souls might exist, but so could just about anything else. Lacking definite proof either way, we can safely assume souls do not exist. If they do... well, bugger.
Basically... it doesn't matter. I matter, everybody else (not just including, but ESPECIALLY my clone) only matters as long as they suit my purposes Altruism is only another form of egoism... a long-term planning, smart form of egoism Love ? Again, egoism. Since we know we're not immortal, RIGHT NOW the only "way" for us to acheive imortality is genetically, via our offspring. Giving your life for a loved one ? Egoism, again. Or stupidity.
While I agree to an extent, murder is murder. If I would murder my own clone, who is capable of living his life the same or differently from me, than does that really make me any less of a murderer?
You can know if he possesses consciousness or not based on his capability to live his own life. If he is just some vegetable that is kept alive in a vat, or by machines, then that's fair game. If he is capable of standing eye to eye with you and conversing on the laws of quantum theory then he is separate but similar to you, and killing him would be murder whether you paid for his creation or not. Like I said I consider killing your clone in that case to be similar to murdering a child. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:55:00 -
[19]
Granted, in the case of a clone... it DOES get complicated.
First off, it would be a chance at immortality in a way no natural offspring could ever give you. Obviously, if you personally CAN'T become (at least theoretically, barring any accidents) immortal via your clone's organs, then you will find it very difficult, probably impossible to give the order to kill your clone for its organs.
That's more or less the basic fear behind cloning... that you would be much more interested in keeping yourself alive for as long as possible (via some clones you****cute for organs), while at the same time educating/grooming another non-sacrificial clone to be your direct descendant. The fear is that society would become stagnant, since, hey, who would be crazy enough to get a kid they know nothing of (and has 50% non-self materials) when they can have a copy of themselves ?
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:59:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Akita T Granted, in the case of a clone... it DOES get complicated.
First off, it would be a chance at immortality in a way no natural offspring could ever give you. Obviously, if you personally CAN'T become (at least theoretically, barring any accidents) immortal via your clone's organs, then you will find it very difficult, probably impossible to give the order to kill your clone for its organs.
That's more or less the basic fear behind cloning... that you would be much more interested in keeping yourself alive for as long as possible (via some clones you****cute for organs), while at the same time educating/grooming another non-sacrificial clone to be your direct descendant. The fear is that society would become stagnant, since, hey, who would be crazy enough to get a kid they know nothing of (and has 50% non-self materials) when they can have a copy of themselves ?
Yes. Cloning brings about a large number of societal changes, some of which are... undesirable.
This is why I fully support cybernetic technology. I feel that cloning is realistically unnecessary unless it leads to finding a way to transfer your consciousness from one body to another. If it can do this, anyone with enough money to pay for it could have their consciousness transferred from a biological body to a mechanical body, although I have the suspicion that this would an extreme strain to the mind on top of it requiring significant technology as the brain truly is very complex. I mean did you know that long-term memories are created with protein bonds in the brain? |
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:03:00 -
[21]
Originally by: rValdez5987 While I agree to an extent, murder is murder.
Heck, we might even be forced to REDEFINE "murder" to specifically exclude killing a clone, be it a sentient or a "mostly vegetative" one. We don't call self-defense "murder" either... why should killing a clone be much different ? That clone would have certainly not have existed if it wasn't for us, that's for sure. With cloning in place and it "working as intended", we might live to see theft as a far more serious crime than the killing of a clone... if we would even consider killing a sentient clone murder at all.
And that's the other part of the big fear of the anti-cloning advocates. I don't consider it more valid than the PETA point of view though, and I consider THEIR viewpoint crap.
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
BlackDragonShadow
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:08:00 -
[22]
Quote: I mean did you know that long-term memories are created with protein bonds in the brain?
Yes.
Did you know it takes a super computer to accurately represent the thought processes of small slice of rat brain in real time?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:12:00 -
[23]
Originally by: rValdez5987 This is why I fully support cybernetic technology. I feel that cloning is realistically unnecessary unless it leads to finding a way to transfer your consciousness from one body to another.
Cloning as "second life" isn't really even on the table. I mean, if you CAN do the human->machine transfer without significant losses (be it as a simulation or just for storage purposes), it's only a matter of time until you could manage a machine->human transfer, eventually.
Right now, cloning is merely a "spare parts" thing, intending to prolong the life of your current nervous system (a.k.a. "you"). We completely lack at this time the resolution (and I mean that in the 1024x768 sense, not the "determination" sense) to even "scan" the brain in real-time in order to make a "neuronal network" datadump, let alone have enough storage space of the gathered data... and trying to run a simulation of it will be even more expensive... and to be quite honest, I'm not sure how long it will take until we will (if ever) be able to do any of that.
Meanwhile, first off artificial wombs, then cloning for organ harvesting... far more realistic in the near future.
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:13:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: rValdez5987 While I agree to an extent, murder is murder.
Heck, we might even be forced to REDEFINE "murder" to specifically exclude killing a clone, be it a sentient or a "mostly vegetative" one. We don't call self-defense "murder" either... why should killing a clone be much different ? That clone would have certainly not have existed if it wasn't for us, that's for sure. With cloning in place and it "working as intended", we might live to see theft as a far more serious crime than the killing of a clone... if we would even consider killing a sentient clone murder at all.
And that's the other part of the big fear of the anti-cloning advocates. I don't consider it more valid than the PETA point of view though, and I consider THEIR viewpoint crap.
But your children (if you have any) wouldn't have existed if it weren't for you either. That doesn't give you the right to kill them.
Self defense IS murder, the difference is that it's forgivable, and you won't receive punishment. (depending on where you live)
the Definition of murder probably won't ever change. The interpretation of punishment that should be allotted for the various circumstances in which murder takes place, probably will change over time. But at it's core, it is still murder.
|
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:13:00 -
[25]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow
Quote: I mean did you know that long-term memories are created with protein bonds in the brain?
Yes.
Did you know it takes a super computer to accurately represent the thought processes of small slice of rat brain in real time?
I was aware that our current technology isn't capable of mechanizing the human brain or very many other parts for that matter, but I was not aware of that specific piece of information. |
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:17:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: rValdez5987 This is why I fully support cybernetic technology. I feel that cloning is realistically unnecessary unless it leads to finding a way to transfer your consciousness from one body to another.
Cloning as "second life" isn't really even on the table. I mean, if you CAN do the human->machine transfer without significant losses (be it as a simulation or just for storage purposes), it's only a matter of time until you could manage a machine->human transfer, eventually.
Right now, cloning is merely a "spare parts" thing, intending to prolong the life of your current nervous system (a.k.a. "you"). We completely lack at this time the resolution (and I mean that in the 1024x768 sense, not the "determination" sense) to even "scan" the brain in real-time in order to make a "neuronal network" datadump, let alone have enough storage space of the gathered data... and trying to run a simulation of it will be even more expensive... and to be quite honest, I'm not sure how long it will take until we will (if ever) be able to do any of that.
Meanwhile, first off artificial wombs, then cloning for organ harvesting... far more realistic in the near future.
Yes because it is easier, and within the limits of current technology. The ethics must still be considered, and proper regulations must exist to prevent corruption.
Even still, there are current products in the pipeline to replace things such as your sight, nervous system, heart, among existing organ replacement. Cloning would be used to replace appendages, or original organs when the individual prefers to be organic.
I still prefer cybernetics but we require nano technology to be a bit further along. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:21:00 -
[27]
Originally by: rValdez5987 But your children (if you have any) wouldn't have existed if it weren't for you either. That doesn't give you the right to kill them.
Your children are only 50% yours, and even if you had the other 50% donated, the laws haven't changed yet. If it was after me, children under 12 WOULD be property of their parents, and, with the written accord of both, they could be handled any way the PARENTS see fit of them. I mean, we already allow parents to mentally form their children any way they see fit, I fail to see how mental should be considered less important than phisical... if anything, it should be the other way around.
Quote: Self defense IS murder, the difference is that it's forgivable, and you won't receive punishment. (depending on where you live). The definition of murder probably won't ever change.
Nope, the very DEFINITION of murder right now states that murder is "an unlawful killing of one human by another". As long as it's lawful, it's not murder. All murders are kills, but not all kills are murders.
You don't have to change the definition of murder, it can stay the same... you only need to change the law
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
Arvald
Caldari The Lumberjacks
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:25:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 24/07/2009 20:52:24
Originally by: rValdez5987 The true problem with this idea is that we aren't sure about the concept of consciousness and souls.
Souls might exist, but so could just about anything else. Lacking definite proof either way, we can safely assume souls do not exist. If they do... well, bugger.
Basically... it doesn't matter. I matter, everybody else (not just including, but ESPECIALLY my clone) only matters as long as they suit my purposes Altruism is only another form of egoism... a long-term planning, smart form of egoism Love ? Again, egoism. Since we know we're not immortal, RIGHT NOW the only "way" for us to acheive imortality is genetically, via our offspring. Giving your life for a loved one ? Egoism, again. Or stupidity, depending on circumstances (is that "loved one" your offspring, or do they carry your offspring, or at least are instrumental in taking care of your offspring? then all fine, otherwise stupid). Society ? Again, egoism. The need for safety, for you and your offspring. Morals ? Pretty much the same, creating an environment where you think your offspring would be safer.
We are all huge egoists, denying that would be... silly ?
its reasons like this, why i like akita
|
goodby4u
Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:34:00 -
[29]
Well the problem here lies with the reason we would clone.
One would clone for the reason of using such a clone for organs, war, suicide bombers and even research... Why? Well for the time being since they aren't used clones will not have any human rights, they also in addition do not have a paper trail behind them, so if one were to murder a person his identical twin could be hundreds of miles away in front of people and the murderer will never be caught.
In addition to all of this, a twin has a paper trail, if such an event were to happen you could find a twin whereas the clone would be near impossible.
Lastly, if you wish to convict somebody of murder you clone him, get the clone to kill somebody on camera in front of everybody and you have a simple convicting of the cloned individual.... Not to mention cloning would mean a breach in security as far as eye, thumb, and facial types of locks not to mention picture ID.
Clones can cause a lot of severe problems, and it is not just the "us playing God"thing.
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:34:00 -
[30]
Cloning does not create anything new, but creates only a copy of what already exists. The key really is sex. By natural reproduction do we produce a new variation from two DNAs, which then gets its own chance to reproduce itself. Cloning would make an end to human evolution. We cannot produce a new clone and treat it as an equal to ourselves, because we would only threaten human evolution.
Using clones as an organ depot is not possible. It would require for the clone to be alive. Instead will medical research try to grow individual organs, but not entire bodies. --
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |