| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zakarazor
   |
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:37:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: rValdez5987
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.
well as much as i like the idea of cybernetics to cut back on the need for food, sleep and such...all the way to a coplete mind upload. i rather enjoy eating and sleeping. i wouldnt want to skip that. but then again...by then i guess it would be simulated...
|
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 21:38:00 -
[32]
Because clones don't have a soul!!!!
Therefore it is totally ethical to do what they did in "The Island" 
And did you know that this is in fact Surfin's Plunderbunny's forum alt? It's official! |
Ferdio Ricotez
Gallente
Killer Carebears
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 22:31:00 -
[33]
I don't consider cloning to be unethical. After all, many twins share the same DNA, and are basically clones of each other, yet they are two completely different persons.
Genetic manipulation, on the other hand... Well, a good in-EVE argument would be the Jove.
-----
Gallente flying Minmatar - A Podlog |
nahtoh
Caldari
Vanguard Frontiers
Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 23:10:00 -
[34]
Originally by: rValdez5987
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.
Meh self defense is killing, not murder(lehgally and its my moral/ethical outlook as well).
Killing does not equate to murder I belive arguement thats the orginal commandment translates to "thou shall not muder" not thou shalt not kill".
=========
"I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
rValdez5987
Amarr
Imperial Guard.
Soldiers of Solitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 00:39:00 -
[35]
Originally by: nahtoh
Originally by: rValdez5987
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.
Meh self defense is killing, not murder(lehgally and its my moral/ethical outlook as well).
Killing does not equate to murder I belive arguement thats the orginal commandment translates to "thou shall not muder" not thou shalt not kill".
that only depends on which christian church you ask. |
Lt Forge
Pilots From Honour
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 01:11:00 -
[36]
Cloning corporations are being made, eventually they get profit etc etc and etc. But what you don't know is that they secretly do stuff with clones behind our backs.
Does super human soldiers ring a bell?
_____________
|
Alex Raptos
Caldari
Phoenix Rising.
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 01:13:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Lt Forge
Cloning corporations are being made, eventually they get profit etc etc and etc. But what you don't know is that they secretly do stuff with clones behind our backs.
Does super human soldiers ring a bell?
More like Slave Workers, both of the general and the "Niche" kind.
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
I've become gay for Mark Harmon despite my initial reservations about the show NCIS but nobody will ever know
|
Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 03:07:00 -
[38]
I did actually clone myself some years ago, in a secret laboratory in an abandoned castle in darkest Cheshire, but it didn't go very well.
Possibly due to some unconsidered variable, or freak ocurence, the clone, whilst superficially physically identical to myself, exhibited some serious behavioural problems, not least of which was a prediliction for shouting the most disgusting swearwords at the top of it's voice at all times of the day and night, and running around the nearby villages naked, frightening the horses.
I put up with it for as long as I could, but eventually it grew to be more than I could bear and I pushed it out of a tower window and watched it fall to it's death on the rocks below.
Within ten minuites the police had arrived, and I was charged with making an obscene clone fall.
___________________________________________________
The game will never be over, because we're keeping the meme alive. |
Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 03:14:00 -
[39]
Cloning would be done to rid ourselves of what we perceive as genetically inferior material, isn't that right? Now consider us not knowing all variables, what is to say that some genetic setup in existence now but not particularly successful becomes so in the near future?
Genetical engineering may well be the first step towards extinction.
Delenda est achura. |
Taedrin
Gallente
Golden Mechanization Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 03:37:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Taedrin on 25/07/2009 03:38:26
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.
Just because there is no evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist. Instead of saying "Lacking definite proof either way, we can safely assume souls do not exist.", you should have said:
"Because we don't have any evidence of the existence of a soul, we can not assume that a soul exists". We can not assume that a soul exists, but we also can not assume that a soul does NOT exist. You can't assume anything until you have evidence to back yourself up. And lack of evidence is not evidence.
Quote:
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 
Quote:
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).
TBH, the notion that you can achieve immortality through your offspring is ridiculous. When you die, you die. Your "self" ceases to exist (presuming some form of an afterlife or quantum-immortality does not exist). Your memories cease to exist. Your abilities to perceive the universe cease to exist. For all intents and purposes, when you die, the universe ceases to exist as well. This means that when you die, your loved ones cease to exist as well.
The reason why someone sacrifices themselves for a loved one is because this response has evolved over time. DNA which leads to the preservation of offspring is more likely to be passed down to future generations. Thus DNA which causes one's self to preserve their offspring over themselves tends to be expressed more than DNA which does not.
Now, what is egoism? Simply put, it is when you prefer to have situations benefit yourself, even at the expense of others. When you sacrifice yourself for your offspring - you do not benefit. Your DNA does. And your DNA is not a sentient entity, so is not capable of recognizing such abstract concepts as "egoism" and "altruism". Actually, what I said before does not make sense either. Your DNA does not benefit either, as the concept of being able to "benefit" from something requires a "self" to receive the "benefit". And as a DNA does not have a "self", it can not benefit. It just so happens to be that DNA which preserves offspring DNA is more likely to be expressed in the gene pool. It's just a fluke in the laws of physics, mathematics and statistics. Your DNA is not capable of wanting something. It just simply "is".
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 05:35:00 -
[41]
Ethics and morality are the biggest impediment to science. If researchers were allowed to do their work without the moral police putting up roadblocks, our knowledge of the universe and especially medicine would be decades if not centuries more advanced than it is now. Pure scientists that care more about the work than the petty concerns of the self-righteous are often vilified and portrayed as monsters. While men of science like Dr. Josef ******* live in infamy their research has provided invaluable data to modern medicine. If scientists were allowed to run their experiments on whomever they wanted whenever they wanted weÆd have so many diseases already cured and it would be a better life for all.
Human beings of all backgrounds will always be afraid of new things. ItÆs hardly the sole providence of the religious. Early in the days of organ transplant people made bleak predictions of a cannibalistic society of FrankensteinÆs monsters. In fact ShelleyÆs Frankenstein was a work of anti-science propaganda. The atomic age led to even more ôweÆre all gonna dieö BS. From the Hulk to atomic war, people feared and continue to fear the power of the atom. Genetics research is just the latest in a long series of things to be afraid of. Even the story of Spiderman has changed from an atomic origin to a genetics origin. Genetically modified foods and livestock produce a lot of hysteria in the hippie naturalist communities.
And for all the hysteria we now have people living longer and being cured of disease thanks to organ transplants. Sure we have a few black markets organ cartels that kidnap people and carve them up. But thatÆs mostly in Asia so we donÆt need to worry about it.
The power of nuclear fission has given us powerful weapons to defend our nations and clean, safe nuclear power. Sure we got a Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Three Mile Island but thatÆs all in the past. We know much better how to use the atom and are much more responsible with how we use and store radioactive materials. The will never be another atomic disaster, it simply canÆt happen.
Genetics research has dramatically increased food yield across the board. Sure theeÆs evidence that GM food are killing off certain insects like Monarch Butterflies and Bees but who cares. Now there are a number of unknown health risks with GM foods. You go manipulating DNA and certain things will get screwed up, thatÆs a fact. But if we stop eating them weÆll never find out what the problems are and weÆll never be able to address them. So eat up and be proud to be part in this exciting scientific endeavor. And if you get sick and die you will provide excellent data to help make the next generation of GM foods safer.
And soon we will have cloned organ replacements. Just imagine the number of diseases and conditions that can be completely eliminated by this!! And many believe that advances in gene therapy could eliminate nearly all sickness from the world!!
While human cloning does raise interesting questions about the soul and the nature of being human these are best left to the priests and philosophers.
But as a more direct answer to the OPà the primary ethical concern with human cloning is not so much with having a clone as the way of getting one. Human cloning is not perfected yet. Most people seem to talk about it like itÆs as easy as making an instant ramen. And new medical procedure goes through a period of trial and error. All researchers in the field of genetics and cloning agree that the first few (to few hundred, no way to know yet) clones are gonna be messed up. ItÆs completely normal. The technique and procedures will need to be fine tuned, assuming thereÆs not some unknown variable that makes human cloning impossible, before we actually get a good clone. This means that the scientists would be making humans to suffer. The most alarmist image would be mounds of slimy flesh on a steel table begging for death. A more accurate image, I believe, would be something like a sad childrenÆs hospital, dozens of sick kids undergoing endless tests while their little bodies shut down and thereÆs nobody that visits them or even gives a crap. And the fact that this suffering would be intentional has people upset. Sorry youÆre in constant pain Jimmy 1.3 but England want Lady Diana back and Rupert Murdoch wants a pet Reaganà so suck it up and hold still.
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 06:06:00 -
[42]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow
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?
Can you answer these questions to the satifaction of people who think cloning is wrong?
Is it a human?
If its a human does it have human rights?
If its a human with human rights does that make it a citizen of the nation it was "born" in?
If the above are all yes then do the sientists who gave it life have the right to treat it like a lab experiment?
If yes how far are they allowed to go with their studies?
Would it be murder to deliberately clone myself for the purpose of harvesting its healthy organs for my own use seeing as the likelyhood of rejection is minimal to non existant?
If the clone is considered human and its considered murder to kill it to purposely harvest its organs then what is the point of cloning a human in the first place? you'r just creating another mouth to feed and its not exactly hard to create a human these days.
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 06:08:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/07/2009 06:13:13
Originally by: Mr Reeth
... While men of science like Dr. Josef ******* live in infamy their research has provided invaluable data to modern medicine. ...
He was a German national socialist under Adolf H1tler, who worked at a concentration camp in Auschwitz. Those who did not die in a gas chamber were used for his experiments.
That is what you get when you throw away moral and ethics.
No more of this BS, Mr. Reeth. Instead, I suggest you visit the Auschwitz memorial.
--
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 06:13:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Mr Reeth
... While men of science like Dr. Josef ******* live in infamy their research has provided invaluable data to modern medicine. ...
Easy to say that when your not on the recieving end of the scalpel.
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 06:25:00 -
[45]
Whitehound, Jacob... please have you sarcasm detectors taken in for maintenance.
|
Aethrwolf
Caldari
Home for Wayward Gamers
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 06:29:00 -
[46]
lol, if you had viable cloning of humans, you end up with some rich airhead waste of space either cloning themselves stay around and annoy everyone longer or to have the "perfect" companion and REALLY annoy us. (Paris Hilton's new friend Parys, anyone?)
If clones werent given rights you'd have all kind of people puttting them to depraved uses. Sex slaves, suicide bombers, cannon fodder in general, workforces that you dont have to provide any safety for (boss we need another press operator on 5.. WHAT? thats the 3rd one this week!), medical school training dummies (dont need no stinking cadavers!)
I personally an curious to clone myself just to see if a problem I have is genetic or not.. doctors have disagreed and my research says it could be either.
Absolutely everything is subjective. |
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 06:36:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Aethrwolf
Paris Hilton's new friend Parys, anyone?
 Thanks, now I'm gonna have nightmares.
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 06:37:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Mr Reeth
Whitehound, Jacob... please have you sarcasm detectors taken in for maintenance.
The batteries ran out and its 2 am over here so im not going to the store for new ones 
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 11:56:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/07/2009 12:07:04
Originally by: Mr Reeth
While men of science like Dr. Josef ******* live in infamy their research has provided invaluable data to modern medicine.
I continue to take offence in this and I will criticise this again regardless of the moderation's believe in a need to delete the criticism! Dr. M. was not just some unethical and immoral scientist, but helped in the mass killing of thousands of people during the 2nd World War in the Auschwitz concentration camp. I can see how the comment is supposed to be sarcastic, but it fails at describing the crimes against humanity that Dr. M. did.
I suggest that Mr. Reeth as well as the moderation at CCP first read the articles about Dr. M. and Auschwitz at Wikipedia before they regard the criticism as pointless or meaningless.
--
|
Futuristic Eagle
League of Gentlemen
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 12:23:00 -
[50]
I don't like cloning because Iv'e read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Cloning organs for transplants is fine by me, a little freaky, but still...
On the other hand, cloning entire people, I would deem wrong because it kind of kills the family structure, doesn't it? When you can make people whole, and make them how you want them, were basically one step away from Brave New World...
Yeah, basically, yes, the natural way of makin' babby is more fun.
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator
(Note : above image may actually be Empress Jamyl) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 12:25:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: Akita T
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.
Just because there is no evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist. Instead of saying "Lacking definite proof either way, we can safely assume souls do not exist.", you should have said:
"Because we don't have any evidence of the existence of a soul, we can not assume that a soul exists".
Nah, if anything, I should have said "lacking definite proof either way, we can assume whatever's most convenient for us".
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
Awesome Possum
Insert Obscure Latin Name
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 12:29:00 -
[52]
Originally by: rValdez5987
If it was a clone that lacked a functioning soul
/facepalm
i'm looking through all these medical sites, and i can't seem to find this organ you're describing.
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 13:25:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: rValdez5987
If it was a clone that lacked a functioning soul
/facepalm
i'm looking through all these medical sites, and i can't seem to find this organ you're describing.
IÆm curious but in secular terms how would you describe a soul? By soul I mean the defining mental elements that make up who you are.
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Awesome Possum
Insert Obscure Latin Name
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 13:50:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Jacob Mei
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: rValdez5987
If it was a clone that lacked a functioning soul
/facepalm
i'm looking through all these medical sites, and i can't seem to find this organ you're describing.
IÆm curious but in secular terms how would you describe a soul? By soul I mean the defining mental elements that make up who you are.
You just did, thank you come again.
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 14:19:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: Jacob Mei
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: rValdez5987
If it was a clone that lacked a functioning soul
/facepalm
i'm looking through all these medical sites, and i can't seem to find this organ you're describing.
IÆm curious but in secular terms how would you describe a soul? By soul I mean the defining mental elements that make up who you are.
You just did, thank you come again.
 Thats taking the easy way out of philosophical discussion.
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 14:20:00 -
[56]
Since ethics and morality are subjective and thus rather arbitrary, the question shouldn't be whether or not cloning is unethical but rather why would we want cloning to be unethical.
--------
Ideas for: Mining
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 14:41:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Since ethics and morality are subjective and thus rather arbitrary, the question shouldn't be whether or not cloning is unethical but rather why would we want cloning to be unethical.
Is it even an ethical or moral question to begin with? Given the estimated population, sex ratio (last estimated to be 106 male 100 female) and baring any sort of outbreak of biological or viral that targets one gender over the other the only reason to try human cloning to me seems to just be if it can be done or not. So really, is human cloning just a question of its practical or not? I mean in this day and age its not like there isnÆt any opportunity to propagate the species or situation that would call for cloning.
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 15:31:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Since ethics and morality are subjective and thus rather arbitrary, the question shouldn't be whether or not cloning is unethical but rather why would we want cloning to be unethical.
"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." - It is those who do not have much moral and ethics to not see any.
Moral is simply a message for us to learn, i.e. the moral of a story. It is supposed to teach us about the consequences without having to face the consequences. Some then agree to a moral, because they know about the lesson it tells, and others yet have to learn it and therefore may object to it.
Ethics are a part of philosophy and I do not think ethics is a subjective science, but an actual science trying to find the objective.
Perhaps start at defining what cloning is and what it is not. When a cells splits and multiplies then all it does is to clone itself. If we reproduce an organ then we perform cloning, too. So how can cloning be unethical?
What is unethical is the creation of human live that is absolutely equal to us (alive, breathing and thinking), but that we do not intend to give the same rights as ourselves and instead that we want to use for our own needs.
Trying to find a definition for when this still counts as ethical and for when it becomes unethical is described by another moral we all have heard before. It is the moral told by the attempt of "splitting hair".
Now, I am not a good teller of morals, but I do know from maths that if we keep approaching a barrier (a limes or limit) for long enough then we may well have reached it.
--
|
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 17:56:00 -
[59]
Cloning individual organ systems for the use of transplant should not be much of an issue. The minute you clone a full human, for the sole use of doing things the real you doesn't want to do, is when I would see it as unethical.
My sing up list for organs and tissues I want replaced with genetically superior clones are as follows along with proper surgical replacement techniques.
- A new small intestine
- A new set of eyes
- A pair of inner ears
- 4 pairs of menisci and one ACL
- A non-compromised set of lungs
If the ability of cloning full joints occurs I will go for a new right ankle, two knew knees, and two new shoulders.
With this technology on the verge of coming into use it comes ever closer to us testing the maximum longevity of the human brain. With the ability to continually replace organs we should be able to live longer, baring surgical complications. Of course only certain people will really be able to afford the technology on any serious scale for quite some time.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
=v= |
Awesome Possum
Insert Obscure Latin Name
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 19:45:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/07/2009 15:39:09
Originally by: Abrazzar
Since ethics and morality are subjective and thus rather arbitrary, the question shouldn't be whether or not cloning is unethical but rather why would we want cloning to be unethical.
"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." - It is those who do not have much moral and ethics to not see any.
Wrong, morals and ethics are complete opinions. Proof is in the history of mankind.
As for why we should clone human beings? Organ farming, of course.
There is also the slight off chance that sometime in the future we will actually figure out a way of either transplanting, transferring, or direct copying the brain. These technologies along with cloning would bring man one step closer to achieving the ultimate goal in life... immortality.
As someone who is a huge proponent of human culling, wars, abortion, and lowering the population by great means (as long as we are stuck on this island); I see no reason why a clone of myself who has absolutely no life experience could/should not be used to give someone with great life experience (me) a new life saving organ.
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |