EVE Search - Why would cloning be considered unethical?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Why would cloning be considered unethical?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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 ~~FALCON~~RELIGION ! 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 ~~FALCON~~RELIGION ! 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 ~~FALCON~~RELIGION ! 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. --
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
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.25 19:58:00 - [61] Originally by: Awesome Possum 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. Then why do you not give yourself to someone who is just about to start to making a great life experience? Why not share what you value the most with others? As crazy as it sounds, but you could commit suicide only to give your organs to those who need them. --
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.25 20:03:00 - [62] Originally by: Whitehound Then why do you not give yourself to someone who is just about to start to making a great life experience? Why not share what you value the most with others? As crazy as it sounds, but you could commit suicide only to give your organs to those who need them. Because knowledge is power and money, and as such, my own life is far more valuable than a clone with 0 knowledge or experience. As for giving my own life to those who need it. That is a completely subjective term, and yes I would be willing to.. to those who I personally believed needed it. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.25 20:06:00 - [63] Originally by: Awesome Possum As for giving my own life to those who need it. That is a completely subjective term, and yes I would be willing to.. to those who I personally believed needed it. Then your fight against morals is futile. --
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.25 20:53:00 - [64] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: Awesome Possum As for giving my own life to those who need it. That is a completely subjective term, and yes I would be willing to.. to those who I personally believed needed it. Then your fight against morals is futile. I have no fight against morals, my fight is against people who claim any form of universal ethics/morality. Morals are completely subjective to the individual. Most people have a common belief in some morals, even if the precise details may differ per person, but it doesn't make it universal. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.07.25 22:08:00 - [65] Originally by: Awesome Possum Because knowledge is power and money, and as such, my own life is far more valuable than a clone with 0 knowledge or experience. So you're saying that human life in and of itself has no value? Or are you saying that the value of a life can be quantified?
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.25 22:13:00 - [66] Originally by: Mr Reeth Originally by: Awesome Possum Because knowledge is power and money, and as such, my own life is far more valuable than a clone with 0 knowledge or experience. So you're saying that human life in and of itself has no value? Or are you saying that the value of a life can be quantified? Value is subjective and thus can be given in any arbitrary amount. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.07.25 22:36:00 - [67] Originally by: Abrazzar Value is subjective and thus can be given in any arbitrary amount. Probably, I was just looking for clarification on his opinion on the subject in order to better understand his argument.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.25 22:48:00 - [68] Originally by: Mr Reeth Originally by: Awesome Possum Because knowledge is power and money, and as such, my own life is far more valuable than a clone with 0 knowledge or experience. So you're saying that human life in and of itself has no value? Or are you saying that the value of a life can be quantified? More subjective questions that can not have a universal answer. Answer 1: http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp Answer 2: My buddy goes to the phillipines a lot and has heard the current price there for killing someone and paying off the cops to look away is ~ $600, prices will of course vary depending on location and social position of the exhumed. Answer 3: All human life is created equal. After that, its up to every individual to determine their self worth. Answer 4: The more there is of something in one place, the lower the value on it. As such, the higher the world's population becomes, the lower the value of the individual life. This may or may not change the moment humanity starts colonizing off the rock. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.07.25 22:53:00 - [69] Originally by: Awesome Possum More subjective questions that can not have a universal answer. I didn't ask the universe. I asked YOU. You said your life is more valuable than a clones life. In YOUR opinion does human life have no innate value or is the value in some way quantifiable? I'm not picking a fight or trolling you. I'm just trying to see YOUR side.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.25 23:39:00 - [70] Originally by: Mr Reeth Originally by: Awesome Possum More subjective questions that can not have a universal answer. I didn't ask the universe. I asked YOU. You said your life is more valuable than a clones life. In YOUR opinion does human life have no innate value or is the value in some way quantifiable? I'm not picking a fight or trolling you. I'm just trying to see YOUR side. My answer was in the very post you quoted to ask me your question. Why would you think the answer would change? ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
rValdez5987 Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude	Posted - 2009.07.26 00:05:00 - [71] Edited by: rValdez5987 on 26/07/2009 00:11:44 I've read the posts, jesus what a failure of logic. While the abilities of each man and woman are NOT equal from the very beginning, your "value" is equal indefinitely. If you are a living, breathing, human being capable of free choice, then you have just as much value as the next. This is different from justifying your own existence. Your achievements, what you accomplish in your life, is what reinforces your right to your own existence. You are still worth no more than the next guy. This applies to clones as well. If they are capable of free will, and are able to live and function just as you, then they are human, and their lives are equal value to you. They will be expected to justify their existence as well through achievement and hard work, and should be given the same opportunities. Some of you have already made up your minds about how you see a clone as sub human regardless. You are wrong. As cloning becomes more acceptable, expect to see guidelines a bit along the lines of what I've mentioned. The clones will most likely be soulless vegetables that have zero brain activity if they are to be harvested for organs. Otherwise they will be independent and fully living.
rValdez5987 Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude	Posted - 2009.07.26 00:11:00 - [72] One last extra bit on justifying existence, Justifying your existence, NOT YOUR SELF WORTH, but justifying your right to be on this planet and breathe air, is according to your achievement. If you achieve nothing, you deserve nothing, not even life. Truly useless people have no place on this planet. We haven't got the room, nor the resources. Although that sounds a bit inhumane, we need to deal with it whether its through euthanasia, assisted suicide, or genetic research. The fat needs to be trimmed from our society, and the cancer removed, or society as a whole will perish. To use a metaphor: We have a small boat with a treasure chest in the boat, that over time has had sand dumped on top of it, and it's sinking the boat. It's better to be rid of the worthless grains of sand and keep the treasure than allow it all to sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.26 00:22:00 - [73] Originally by: rValdez5987 Complete failure of logic You are static a whole lot of subjective beliefs as if they were objective truth. Who defines what is or what isn't an accomplishment? Who's the judge? What defines something as an achievement? Which achievement is greater than another and why is that so? Who is giving out rights? Who defines them? Who enforces them? Nothing of this is objective absolute truth. It's all subjective and arbitrarily defined. It can be changed at will. You need to learn the difference between subjective beliefs and objective reality. First step is getting over yourself and dropping the significance of your ego. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.26 00:25:00 - [74] Originally by: rValdez5987 One last extra bit on justifying existence, Justifying your existence, NOT YOUR SELF WORTH, but justifying your right to be on this planet and breathe air, is according to your achievement. If you achieve nothing, you deserve nothing, not even life. Truly useless people have no place on this planet. We haven't got the room, nor the resources. Although that sounds a bit inhumane, we need to deal with it whether its through euthanasia, assisted suicide, or genetic research. IMO, this statement doesn't fit with your others. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
rValdez5987 Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude	Posted - 2009.07.26 00:37:00 - [75] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: rValdez5987 Complete failure of logic You are static a whole lot of subjective beliefs as if they were objective truth. Who defines what is or what isn't an accomplishment? Who's the judge? What defines something as an achievement? Which achievement is greater than another and why is that so? Who is giving out rights? Who defines them? Who enforces them? Nothing of this is objective absolute truth. It's all subjective and arbitrarily defined. It can be changed at will. You need to learn the difference between subjective beliefs and objective reality. First step is getting over yourself and dropping the significance of your ego. If someone else finds value in whatever it is that you are doing, and what you're doing isn't morally, socially, or ethically apprehensive, then your existence is justified. Anyone that has already justified their own existence, is qualified to judge. There is no difference in specific value however.
rValdez5987 Amarr Imperial Guard. Soldiers of Solitude	Posted - 2009.07.26 00:50:00 - [76] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: rValdez5987 One last extra bit on justifying existence, Justifying your existence, NOT YOUR SELF WORTH, but justifying your right to be on this planet and breathe air, is according to your achievement. If you achieve nothing, you deserve nothing, not even life. Truly useless people have no place on this planet. We haven't got the room, nor the resources. Although that sounds a bit inhumane, we need to deal with it whether its through euthanasia, assisted suicide, or genetic research. IMO, this statement doesn't fit with your others. I had to go back and re-read, and I changed it, but putting it all in words and being limited to 3500 characters or so is quite hard. Believe it or not I could write a book on a lot of the common issues we face as a society today, their resolutions as well as what we need to be paying attention to as we look forward. There's a good chance I will write a book, and there's also a good chance that nearly no one will read it. As to the reason why, at the core of most of the people I know exists a feeling that they just do not care about what happens after they die. They wouldn't care if humanity just simply ended right after their passing. I had someone say to me the other day "why bother with a space program even if we can prolong the survival of the human race? Who cares if humanity survives?" Humans are inherently short sighted, which allows other characters flaws to become present. Back to clarifying what I said earlier, all humans who are born unequal in terms of talents, and flaws, are equal in the sense that we are all human, IF they possess certain qualities such as a functioning brain, body, and they possess free will. This fundamental right goes to everyone whether they are a human, clone, robot, cyborg, or anything in between. If they have the qualities that most of us healthy human beings have, they have this right. Next we get to justifying your existence. You must contribute something that at least one other person finds value in that is not morally, socially, or ethically, apprehensive. This could be something large or small. As long as someone else finds value in it, size doesn't matter. If you are so foolish to contribute absolutely nothing, that justifies your own existence, you deserve death. Those who are incapable of achieving anything due to physical limits should also receive euthanasia. While inhuman, it is necessary for the survival of mankind for the long term. The survival of the majority that has justified their existence, outweighs the survival of the minority that contribute nothing, and take away resources that are better spent elsewhere.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.26 07:07:00 - [77] Originally by: rValdez5987 If someone else finds value in whatever it is that you are doing, and what you're doing isn't morally, socially, or ethically apprehensive, then your existence is justified. Anyone that has already justified their own existence, is qualified to judge. There is no difference in specific value however. Everything you said is completely subjective and as such has no real substance. It can be changed at will into anything and it will be as valid as what you said. Your opinion does not equal truth. If I say, everything you said is completely wrong, it is as legit as what you said, even without any further (fantasy) explanation. Until you drop this delusional stance of "my opinion = absolute truth" there will be no reasoning with you and any further conversation with you will be an****rcise in futility. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.26 12:14:00 - [78] Originally by: Abrazzar Everything you said is completely subjective and as such has no real substance. It can be changed at will into anything and it will be as valid as what you said. Your opinion does not equal truth. If I say, everything you said is completely wrong, it is as legit as what you said, even without any further (fantasy) explanation. Until you drop this delusional stance of "my opinion = absolute truth" there will be no reasoning with you and any further conversation with you will be an****rcise in futility. Drop the rant. rValdez5987 is right, except perhaps about who deserves death. --
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.26 17:39:00 - [79] Originally by: Whitehound Drop the rant. rValdez5987 is right, except perhaps about who deserves death. No, he's not. Hey, see how opinions and differing ethics work? ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Munchees Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.26 18:55:00 - [80] Because then you really could "go ** yourself". Originally by:** Mr Reeth Why is it every time I read somebody call all Americans stupid I hear it in a British accent and think of this
Evthron Macyntire	Posted - 2009.07.26 19:23:00 - [81] The first thing we will do when we can clone people is harvest their organs and fluids. Clones are people too. Blah blah blah. ------------------------------ Sigs like this.
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.26 20:04:00 - [82] Originally by: Awesome Possum No, he's not. Hey, see how opinions and differing ethics work? Yes, he is. That is not an opinion and there is no such thing as differing ethics, you fool. --
nahtoh Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.26 20:38:00 - [83] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: Awesome Possum No, he's not. Hey, see how opinions and differing ethics work? Yes, he is. That is not an opinion and there is no such thing as differing ethics, you fool. Yes there is... What one person or group of people may consider ethical may not be the same as an other group or person... Example death sentances or abortions... ========= "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
LUH 3472	Posted - 2009.07.26 20:50:00 - [84] cloning oh man...... what nonsense is cloning reality still will get hold of you wether you clone the hell outta semen or not jesus poeple have ideas...... man this is weirdo
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.26 20:53:00 - [85] Originally by: nahtoh Example death sentances or abortions... Nonsense. Killing is unethical. That some nations allow it in some situations does not make it ethical, it only makes it legal. --
Iasius Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.07.26 21:12:00 - [86] Edited by: Iasius on 26/07/2009 21:16:27 Edited by: Iasius on 26/07/2009 21:13:57 Edited by: Iasius on 26/07/2009 21:13:07 'Morality' ruler:- If someone in your family dies this is very bad and has a big effect on you. Relatively pain index - 100 If 20 people die on your street: Relatively pain index - 100. If 10000 people die in your town: Relatively pain index = 100. If 100,000 people die in your country. Relatively pain index = 100. if 100,000,000 die in the world. Relatively pain index = 100. What i am getting at in a rough measure is that we are a predator speicies with two eyes forwards - hunters. In reality what we measure as loss is what we see in the world is juxtaposed against our inate tribal loyalties. The Rwandan genocide killed 1 million people. That is an afterthought to white westerners in regards to the 911 attacks that killed 2974 people. The western backlash in Iraq to 911 has killed at least 250,000 Iraqi civillians, The truth is we associate loss with others that share our value systems and power structures. We have no objective ethics. Re: The human race with its two hunter eyes pointed forwards and its fang teeth Nietzche summed it up: There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena... Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. ~Saint
nahtoh Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.26 21:13:00 - [87] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: nahtoh Example death sentances or abortions... Nonsense. Killing is unethical. That some nations allow it in some situations does not make it ethical, it only makes it legal. Yea you do speak nonsense I agree... You may consider it unethicial, does not mean others do. I would expand on this but my examples would only make this a flamefest, so I won't. ========= "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
Fivetide Amarr Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2009.07.26 23:08:00 - [88] Its the future.. we were never ment to go so many generations, all those tards with peanut allergies or ...oh i cant eat anything with wheat .. will die ... well they should do ... its because they are weak... normally wars would have got rid of the pounces but we have to now have the share our world ... let them die,,,, if you ask me the strong become stronger as we desrtoy the weak ! Quote of the Month your standing infront of 500 people and your the only one faceing the wrong way jimmy carr
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.26 23:18:00 - [89] Edited by: Whitehound on 26/07/2009 23:18:59 Originally by: nahtoh Yea you do speak nonsense I agree... You may consider it unethicial, does not mean others do. I would expand on this but my examples would only make this a flamefest, so I won't. Do not insult me when it is you who is dumb. We have one ethics and they are being watched over by the UNESCO. If your country is part of the UN then we both share the same ethics. If you like it or not or if your president likes it or not does not matter, but this is how it is. Do not declare that we all have different ethics when people are working hard every day so we can share the same ethics, and while all you do is to write a comment on the forum about how you think the world is like. --
nahtoh Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.26 23:36:00 - [90] Originally by: Whitehound Edited by: Whitehound on 26/07/2009 23:18:59 Originally by: nahtoh Yea you do speak nonsense I agree... You may consider it unethicial, does not mean others do. I would expand on this but my examples would only make this a flamefest, so I won't. Do not insult me when it is you who is dumb. We have one ethics and they are being watched over by the UNESCO. If your country is part of the UN then we both share the same ethics. If you like it or not or if your president likes it or not does not matter, but this is how it is. Do not declare that we all have different ethics when people are working hard every day so we can share the same ethics, and while all you do is to write a comment on the forum about how you think the world is like. Put the drugs away mehkay? Ethics are not hard coded, they never have been and never will be, you can have prodessional ethics, personal ethics, socital ethics. What you may class a ethical response I may not and vise versa. Do you consider the ROEs that UN peacekeeprs can be strangled with ethical? I generally don't (for example). And BTW I am not American, where you are a total feckwit by the looks of things and don't think your nationalty has any bearing on that observation... Once more for the hard of thinking (that would be you BTW), Both morals and ethics are human contsrutions that have changed over the ages and will hopefully continue to do so, unless control freak morons like you manage to stop this from happening!! ========= "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
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.07.26 23:46:00 - [91] Originally by: BlackDragonShadow If you created a clone of you wouldn't it just be like having an identical twin? No, they would be a lot younger then you, unless you were cloned at conception. Quote: Why are people against cloning? Because the world, and this thread, is full of ******s (wiki ******* if you don't know who that is. Hmm, the word filter might make that tougher, but I'm sure you'll manage. A German doctor who became famous for his acts during the 1940's)*, and they would not only create clones, fully functioning and sentient ones, for organ harvesting, but they'd try to create a slave race as well. Well, that should really be, they "will" try, not "would". Or possibly even "have tried", but at least large scale success clearly hasn't been achieved thus far. Slavery, of course, is something we cannot tolerate, personally I feel we should not tolerate the proponents of such either. On the other hand, not all men are created equal (though I personally take it for granted that they should be given equal rights, and that manner of conception obviously doesn't matter in the slightest) and the world would benefit from cloning the da Vincis and Einsteins. Sadly, it's more likely we'll start with cloning the rich, rather then the brilliant. And no, they're almost never the same persons.
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.26 23:50:00 - [92] Originally by: nahtoh Put the drugs away mehkay? Is this how you want to stand your ground in this discussion? By staying ignorant and to continue insulting me? You are an even bigger fool than I thought. --
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.26 23:59:00 - [93] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: nahtoh Put the drugs away mehkay? Is this how you want to stand your ground in this discussion? By staying ignorant and to continue insulting me? You are an even bigger fool than I thought. Psh. There is no discussion. You're just trolling. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.27 00:06:00 - [94] Originally by: Abrazzar Psh. There is no discussion. You're just trolling. I am not trolling, but you are. It is always the same people who in lack of an argument declare one as a troll. --
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.07.27 00:15:00 - [95] Originally by: nahtoh Both morals and ethics are human contsrutions that have changed over the ages and will hopefully continue to do so, unless control freak morons like you manage to stop this from happening!! Well, we can hope that they continue to change towards ever softer, cuddlier views, sure. But not that they are diminished, no, we musn't hope for evil to flourish Seriously though, one viewpoint is that there is such a thing as "natural" morals. Not so much from evolution of the individual, but from the evolution of society, or sociocultural evolution. Rules and behaviors that benefit the group, rather then benefit just the individual, will make a stronger society, as the whole is more then the sum of it's parts. In a sense, that the society that is the most efficient at using it's resources, human minds in this case, and thus squanders the least of it's potential, will be the most successful, and eventually it's behavior, it's rules and functions, will spread to societies that fall behind. To take a simple example, when you allow acts of violence within your community, you will reduce the potential of the whole, e.g. by killing off most of your Stephen Hawkins's. When you limit social/economic/academic mobility that is based on ability, by having a caste system or feudal system or just by limiting education to the rich only, you are wasting a lot of potential.
Fivetide Amarr Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2009.07.27 00:17:00 - [96] can you clone me with a huge ram rod ? Quote of the Month your standing infront of 500 people and your the only one faceing the wrong way jimmy carr
TraininVain	Posted - 2009.07.27 00:19:00 - [97] Originally by: Whitehound Most people are against cloning, because they like sex better. A lot. What if I want sex with my clone?
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.27 00:22:00 - [98] Originally by: TraininVain What if I want sex with my clone? You can play with yourself already. Does not need a clone AFAIK. --
nahtoh Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.27 01:58:00 - [99] Originally by: Whitehound Edited by: Whitehound on 27/07/2009 00:19:57 Originally by: Abrazzar Psh. There is no discussion. You're just trolling. I am not trolling, but you are. It is always the same people who in lack of an argument declare one as a troll. Believing that you have anything to say in a discussion about ethics and cloning when you have no clue about ethics and moral, and dreams of cloning, but attempt to take part in the discussion anyway is foolish. You do not like it? Then do not make yourself a fool. Oh wait I know he could perhpaps make canned statement about the UN, confuse two seperate posters in the same thread and think ethics are a unchanging universial constant That should be followed becuase a NGO talking shop says so. Oh wait you already got that covered don't you? Lets not forget the cherry picking you do tend to carry out... ========= "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
nahtoh Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.27 02:03:00 - [100] Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: nahtoh Both morals and ethics are human contsrutions that have changed over the ages and will hopefully continue to do so, unless control freak morons like you manage to stop this from happening!! Well, we can hope that they continue to change towards ever softer, cuddlier views, sure. But not that they are diminished, no, we musn't hope for evil to flourish Seriously though, one viewpoint is that there is such a thing as "natural" morals. Not so much from evolution of the individual, but from the evolution of society, or sociocultural evolution. Rules and behaviors that benefit the group, rather then benefit just the individual, will make a stronger society, as the whole is more then the sum of it's parts. In a sense, that the society that is the most efficient at using it's resources, human minds in this case, and thus squanders the least of it's potential, will be the most successful, and eventually it's behavior, it's rules and functions, will spread to societies that fall behind. To take a simple example, when you allow acts of violence within your community, you will reduce the potential of the whole, e.g. by killing off most of your Stephen Hawkins's. When you limit social/economic/academic mobility that is based on ability, by having a caste system or feudal system or just by limiting education to the rich only, you are wasting a lot of potential. Well I would not fit in fuzzy bunny land myself But yes I would hope that humans as a whole would be less of a bunch of bastards towards each other. ========= "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
Munchees Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.27 02:36:00 - [101] Edited by: Munchees on 27/07/2009 02:37:01 If you saw your clone the universe WOULD EXPLODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's THAT MUCH against nature and the fabric of space and time Originally by: Mr Reeth Why is it every time I read somebody call all Americans stupid I hear it in a British accent and think of this
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2009.07.27 04:34:00 - [102] Uh ... After kind of scanning all these pages I can see that the first problem people have with cloning is that most of them haven't got a clue what it actually is. It isn't like on Star Treck where they get some of Ryker's DNA, put it in the clone machine and create a fully grown clone for him to kill. What cloning really is - in real life - is going through most of the steps toward artificial fertilization except that what is implanted in the womb has had it's DNA replaced by that of the thing to be cloned. Thus - Dolly the sheep. The problem they have with this - is the apparently - the age of the cells involved gets passed on so that Dolly is some what prematurely old. As to any ideas of creating clones for body parts - no - that wouldn't happen as it is entirely impractical. The clone is implanted in a females womb that must carry it to term and then give birth to it where it is raised just like a infant/lamb whatever. You'd then have to feed this child to the point where it could take care of itself - at which point - it would be a fully autonomous human being. The idea that any society on this planet would allow you to kill such a being for it's body parts is absurd. Maybe in some SciFi magazine or movie - but not IRL. Never would that happen. Thinking it could is just silly. Besides which ... needing a new body part - and having to wait 20 years for it to grow ... probably wouldn't do you a lot of good. So - it's a good thing you don't need to create an entire body to create cloned body parts. They're learning how to grow body parts from cells in a jar now. So the future ISN'T growing clones for TWENTY FRAKKING YEARS only to harvest them for parts - it's growing parts in a jar that you can have available in weeks or months. As to using them as a way to immortality, no one has any idea how to transfer all your memories from one brain to the next. That is pure SciFi. Besides which - that wouldn't do YOU any good. YOU'd still die. The biggest reason for not cloning people is that there is no reason to do so that is worth the expense. They are routinely cloning animals now - but they do it to get the same animal they had before, much the way they have been breeding animals selectively for millennia. For the exact same reasons that no one breeds humans - no one is going to clone them. Now - there are any number of non-logical issues that would be raised if cloning humans ever was proposed. But then that's par for the course. People don't think - they feel. And if they - feel - that something is wrong with cloning they'll use what intelligence they have to justify their feelings as they squeal out their emotions at some protest rally. But - outside of some rogue doctor's experiments - which probably will happen ... human cloning on a large scale is unlikely to ever happen because there is no reason for it. It's easier to just make babies. The other thing is - cloning Einstein - wouldn't work. Just because the original was a genius - it does not follow that the clone would be. Human beings are much more a product of their background than they are of their genes. Yes - the clone would probably be intelligent but the world is chock full of intelligent people squandering that intelligence on fashion ... popular music and trying to get laid. If the clone were raised in some highly structured environment to try and replicate Einstein's genius - it would be the structured environment that would have more effect on it than his genes - and may in fact frustrate the very goal the program was trying to achieve. Of course ... there's also that pesky cell age problem ... They've actually got Einsteins brain in a jar (not kidding about that) so they could get his DNA - but it would be the DNA of a very elderly man. Dolly at least was cloned from a merely adult sheep. The thing here is - if they could defeat cell aging - then we wouldn't need clones to achieve immortality - we'd already have it. Orbiting vs. Kiting Faction Schools
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.07.27 08:19:00 - [103] Edited by: Qui Shon on 27/07/2009 08:19:57 Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk The idea that any society on this planet would allow you to kill such a being for it's body parts is absurd. Maybe in some SciFi magazine or movie - but not IRL. Never would that happen. Thinking it could is just silly. Uhh, do you deny the holocaust as well? That's why I mentioned *****, though you have to quote me to see the word, to remind you that some really insane stuff really does happen on a large scale from time to time. Also, you'll note, if you didn't already, I commented on the "same age clones" ideas in my initial post already. Quote: Besides which ... needing a new body part - and having to wait 20 years for it to grow ... probably wouldn't do you a lot of good. Yes, it would do you a lot of good, since you'd get started in time, say when you're 50, not when you already need the "part". And you don't have to wait a full 20 years to get harvestable organs. Quote: They're learning how to grow body parts from cells in a jar now. Apparently a number of transplants have already been done, but only for some organs. This type of "cloning" work is not controversial at all. Quote:** The biggest reason for not cloning people is that there is no reason to do so that is worth the expense...For the exact same reasons that no one breeds humans - no one is going to clone them... ...Until results are reliable and it's cheap enough, which is going to happen sooner rather then later. Also, people don't just want babies, they want their own babies, and a clone is just taking that one step further. We spend fortunes on artificial insemination and other techniques to combat infertility today, even though a simple switch of partners would be "free of charge". Quote: The other thing is - cloning Einstein - wouldn't work. Just because the original was a genius - it does not follow that the clone would be. Rather, it's not guaranteed, but the likelyhodd is a hell of a lot higher then for some random birth. Old fashioned breeding of animals works too, even if it doesn't work every time, with every pup. Cloning is a lot more precise, and a heck of a lot faster. Quote: Human beings are much more a product of their background than they are of their genes. Rather, I would say that regarding nature vs nurture, that nature gives you the building blocks, nurture lays the foundation with those blocks. A great variance in results can come from the same "blocks", but, some people really do have a lot better and/or suitable "blocks" to build with towards a certain result. Almost writing off nature, as you seem to do, is not warranted.
Munchees Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.27 08:26:00 - [104] I just thought of something... We could use our clones as food. Originally by: Mr Reeth Why is it every time I read somebody call all Americans stupid I hear it in a British accent and think of this
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.07.27 09:31:00 - [105] Originally by: Munchees I just thought of something... We could use our clones as food. The net result would be energy loss. It's as sensible thing to do as to try to outsmart thermodynamics and construct perpetum mobile. If food is really what you are after genetically modified plankton is more likely food source than growing multicellular animals. Plants are already often cloned in addition to genetic modifications to them.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.27 10:04:00 - [106] Edited by: Abrazzar on 27/07/2009 10:03:48 Originally by: Munchees I just thought of something... We could use our clones as food. Well, we could use related technologies to grow slabs of meat for food in a more efficient manner than growing full animals on the field and with less waste, too. That may even shut up animal rights groups about meat production, though PETA might just rename themselves to People for the Ethical Treatment of Lab Grown Meat Slabs. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.27 11:04:00 - [107] Originally by: Abrazzar Well, we could use related technologies to grow slabs of meat for food in a more efficient manner than growing full animals on the field and with less waste, too. That may even shut up animal rights groups about meat production, though PETA might just rename themselves to People for the Ethical Treatment of Lab Grown Meat Slabs. Or we could stop thinking about those who rather starve than to kill an animal and to eat it. What you describe is what will happen when you allow people to be afraid of killing an animal. When it is our nature to kill and eat animals do we become inhuman when we stop doing it. In the Year 2525. --
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2009.07.27 13:21:00 - [108] Qui Shon, your post is exactly why I didn't do more than scan 4 pages of back and forth arguments. Mostly, you've got your position and are defending it in an argument. The simple (I will admit arrogant) version of this - is that where you agree with me - you are right - where you disagree with my you are wrong. Full body cloning for replacement parts is horrendously expensive, wasteful and of only limited value. Maintaining one or more clones for much of your life time is simply not practicable for all but the richest people. It's a waste in that you only harvest the parts you need - and the clone then dies without them. So the next time you need a part - you have to use ANOTHER clone. The other thing is after a certain point - you're throwing good body parts into a dieing host. As we age - the entire body breaks down, not just limited organs. So - having a replacement heart on hand might help but you can already get those from donors without the expense of maintaining one (or more) clones for 20 years. I use the figure 20 years as that is approximately the age of an adult. If you put immature body parts from a child into an adult they may or may not work. At what point the part is acceptable would depend on the part - but in any case - it would take a damn long time to grow the entire body. As to simply creating half a dozen children so that you can use 5 of them as replacement parts (which may or may not be needed) for the last is just absurd. It's expensive enough to raise one child without raising six - and it wouldn't frakking matter if you short changed the clones - they'd still be expensive as hell to maintain. It's just a stupid idea - that won't work. The only real usage for a full body clone would be if you could transfer your consciousness to it - so that your mind would become active in a 20 year old body. But as I said - that wouldn't do YOU any good since it would be the 20 year old clone that was alive with your memories - while you died. And they can't do that anyway. As to the holocaust - yeah - that is about how this would be regarded and why it would be stopped. Sure genocide still happens but in each case - someone stepped in and stopped it eventually. The thing is it's a lot easier to just go kill a lot of people than it is to maintain a large scale clone base to draw body parts from. All in all cloning for body parts is simply not practical and there are far to many more practical alternatives. Anyone trying it would fail and that would be the end of it. If you can't see that - there's no point in talking to you about it any more. Now ... I believe that eventually people will be cloned - but not on a wide spread basis. For all we know - people have been cloned already. The thing is if they can't get past cell aging then they don't have a viable process. What good does it do you to clone someone who is going to die of old age when they're ten years old? Not a good way to have a kid when there are better alternatives that work now. The thing is - we don't need clones. Spending the money you would spend on a cloning project on better education would get you better results. There are plenty of brilliant young minds out there going to waste now. Helping those young people achieve their full potential is vastly more useful than cloning. And - once again - if they can't over come cell aging - then the whole idea is a waste of time. If they can over come it - then we'll all be immortal and won't need clones anyway. What we will need - is someplace to put all the people who aren't dying any more on a planet that is already over populated. There are a lot of off the wall ideas that come out of Science Fiction - that aren't going to work in the real world. Cloning domesticated animals is merely an extension of existing breeding practices but cloning humans isn't. There is a practical reason for the first - and no reason good enough for the second. Orbiting vs. Kiting Faction Schools
Slade Trillgon Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.07.27 13:51:00 - [109] Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk A whole bunch of stuff about what cloning is today. Although what you say is completely true, the need for the ability to clone individual organs and whatnot is there and the science will continue to try and find a way to stimulate specialized cell duplication to allow for separate organ growth, which is what we need. As for whole body cloning as you said it is overly expensive but on certain levels potentially very practical. Slade Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat! =v=
Al Anders	Posted - 2009.07.27 14:02:00 - [110] I think that eugenic programs base on selection may improve human gene pool, when cloning just duplicate errors. So i think cloning is not unethical. It's just dumd and not for any future progress. Only use is creatig lab rats with identical genes to make experiments and chems/drugs analysis.
Tophin Grimm	Posted - 2009.07.27 15:58:00 - [111] The Island We can sum this discussion up, and add explosins
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.07.27 17:05:00 - [112] Originally by: Tophin Grimm The Island We can sum this discussion up, and add explosins Not really the best movie, it was pretty though, I'm sure there's got to be better sci-fi source then that. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.07.27 17:40:00 - [113] Edited by: Qui Shon on 27/07/2009 17:45:00 Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Qui Shon, your post is exactly why I didn't do more than scan 4 pages of back and forth arguments. You didn't do more then that because you're lazy, and all you've got are lot of unsubstantiated opinions. Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Mostly, you've got your position and are defending it in an argument. The simple (I will admit arrogant) version of this - is that where you agree with me - you are right - where you disagree with my you are wrong. Not just arrogant, but downright ridiculous. Quote: Maintaining one or more clones for much of your life time is simply not practicable for all but the richest people. Well DUH. Quote: So - having a replacement heart on hand might help but you can already get those from donors without the expense of maintaining one (or more) clones for 20 years. No, you can't already get a perfect match on demand from a donor. You can't get a perfect match at all, for that matter. Quote: As to the holocaust - yeah - that is about how this would be regarded and why it would be stopped. Sure genocide still happens but in each case - someone stepped in and stopped it eventually. Uhh. What lala-land do you live in? Pol Pot was supported by the west long after his crimes where known; a little piddly militia was allowed to conduct genocide on the eve of the 2nd millennium right under the watchful eye of western Europe, IN Europe; not to mention the total failure in Rwanda. "Stopped it eventually"... WW2 wasn't fought to save Jews, and had the Axis triumphed, the "final solution" may well have been final in the areas controlled by the **s. But these large scale events are linked to slave races, which are a few steps ahead on the cloning timeline. Small scale cloning of rich people are in a completely different league, and will happen much sooner. Quote: The thing is - we don't need clones. Spending the money you would spend on a cloning project on better education would get you better results. There are plenty of brilliant young minds out there going to waste now. Helping those young people achieve their full potential is vastly more useful than cloning. "We" don't need them, but "we" don't get to decide, unless "we, the people" outlaw research of reproductive cloning, and even that will only have a delaying effect. Quote:** There are a lot of off the wall ideas that come out of Science Fiction - that aren't going to work in the real world. Cloning domesticated animals is merely an extension of existing breeding practices but cloning humans isn't. There is a practical reason for the first - and no reason good enough for the second. There is no difference in principle between cloning humans and pets, just a question of difficulty and obstacles to overcome, whether biological or legal. Human clones are a certainty; we will see reproductive cloning of humans sooner or later. Little Nicky, the first commercial animal clone from 2004, a copy-cat that cost the owner 50k$, is still alive and well and showed no signs of side effects. This despite cloning still being in it's very infancy. This is just the very beginning.
Sniper Wolf18 Gallente A Pretty Pony Princess General Tso's Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.27 17:44:00 - [114] I cloned myself once, but all it could do was say gary and try to kill people.... And to finish, thank you for reading my sig -------------------------------------------------- If you are still reading i would probably hav posted by now
Lumy Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.07.27 17:57:00 - [115] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 24/07/2009 20:41:33 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. P.S. Ever seen the movie "The Island" ? Pretty much that, but without the stupid "you are survivors" and crud like that. Minimal inter-clone interaction, mostly isolation, and a heavy regime of "it's your DUTY to serve your DNA donor by giving away your life when he needs it" Seriously, humans are so easy to brainwash... you could have it gladly give up his life for you, if you pull the right strings from the start and carefully regulate all information input to a strict minimum. Do you hold the same opinion about the child, possibly your child? Assuming you have any or want to have, of course. Effectively "it" is just an amalgam of 2 persons' DNA, conceived without tubes and stuff but more "naturally". Even if it might be sentient and have the capacity to learn just as well as you did when you was young (not that anybody would bother trying to teach it anything). You and your wife made it, you own it, you can do whatever the hell you want with it. For all intents and purposes, it's livestock. Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.27 18:52:00 - [116] 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? think of this clone your self but also change your genes so the clone have a vagina and them count how many attempts u need to have a Frankenstein kid --- self cloning should be nice to break the law imagine on news Quote: 10 BlackDragonShadow's clones have robed 10 banks on same on 10 different citys while the original BlackDragonShadow was playing eve Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
FOl2TY8 Revolutionary United Front Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.07.28 00:10:00 - [117] Originally by: rValdez5987 There's a good chance I will write a book, and there's also a good chance that nearly no one will read it. As to the reason why, at the core of most of the people I know exists a feeling that they just do not care about what happens after they die. They wouldn't care if humanity just simply ended right after their passing. I had someone say to me the other day "why bother with a space program even if we can prolong the survival of the human race? Who cares if humanity survives?" Humans are inherently short sighted, which allows other characters flaws to become present. Back to clarifying what I said earlier, all humans who are born unequal in terms of talents, and flaws, are equal in the sense that we are all human, IF they possess certain qualities such as a functioning brain, body, and they possess free will. This fundamental right goes to everyone whether they are a human, clone, robot, cyborg, or anything in between. If they have the qualities that most of us healthy human beings have, they have this right. Next we get to justifying your existence. You must contribute something that at least one other person finds value in that is not morally, socially, or ethically, apprehensive. This could be something large or small. As long as someone else finds value in it, size doesn't matter. If you are so foolish to contribute absolutely nothing, that justifies your own existence, you deserve death. Those who are incapable of achieving anything due to physical limits should also receive euthanasia. While inhuman, it is necessary for the survival of mankind for the long term. The survival of the majority that has justified their existence, outweighs the survival of the minority that contribute nothing, and take away resources that are better spent elsewhere. Instead of killing off all of the genetically inferior why don't we just kill off people like you. I think the world would be a happier place because people like you are so bitter and boring. I look forward to reading your obituary. Oh yeah, there has to be people that care about you to have one. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve
Calvin Firenze Minmatar Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.07.28 05:37:00 - [118] Edited by: Calvin Firenze on 28/07/2009 05:37:11 The whole "man playing god" thing is a moot argument because there's no such thing as "god"' edit: yes I only read the first page. Slowly buying parts for a new pc, will be back ingame soon...
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2009.07.28 09:18:00 - [119] Originally by: Qui Shon Edited by: Qui Shon on 27/07/2009 17:45:00 More arguments I didn't read 4 pages of arguments on something that isn't going to happen in our life times. I've said what I had to say - I'm right - and you're wrong. Have a nice day. Orbiting vs. Kiting Faction Schools
Tophin Grimm	Posted - 2009.07.28 16:41:00 - [120] Originally by: Jin Nib Originally by: Tophin Grimm The Island We can sum this discussion up, and add explosins Not really the best movie, it was pretty though, I'm sure there's got to be better sci-fi source then that. The dangerous side of cloneing I guess.
CAPSLOCKBROKE Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.07.28 17:02:00 - [121] You guys should watch a movie called The Island. Its about this, and kind of creeps me out to the idea of cloning. Also it has Jessica Alba.
CAPSLOCKBROKE Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.07.28 17:03:00 - [122] Hmmm seems like someone already linked The Island. Still remember: Jessica Alba.
Drunk Driver Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.07.28 17:05:00 - [123] Having your own personal army of clones would be the best macro-miners ever!
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.28 17:44:00 - [124] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: Awesome Possum No, he's not. Hey, see how opinions and differing ethics work? Yes, he is. That is not an opinion and there is no such thing as differing ethics, you fool. Oh really? So you believe cows are sacred and should never be harmed? You believe pigs are disgusting creatures and should never be touched? You believe marriage to 13yr olds is perfectly acceptable? You believe every woman should be circumcised? You believe enforced abortion, and throwing away new born girls is a-ok? You believe digging up and burying her as a 'wife' for your dead son is okie day Annie? Fool ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.28 18:41:00 - [125] Originally by: Awesome Possum Oh really? Yes, oh really. Now you are mixing moral with ethics and with believe. It can hardly get any more foolish now. Soon you will tell me that everything around us is only light. --
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.07.28 19:17:00 - [126] Originally by: Lumy Do you hold the same opinion about the child, possibly your child? Assuming you have any or want to have, of course. Effectively "it" is just an amalgam of 2 persons' DNA, conceived without tubes and stuff but more "naturally". Even if it might be sentient and have the capacity to learn just as well as you did when you was young (not that anybody would bother trying to teach it anything). You and your wife made it, you own it, you can do whatever the hell you want with it. For all intents and purposes, it's livestock. Already covered in a previous post. Keyword being "50% yours". EVE issues\|Mining revamp\|Build stuff\|Make ISK
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.28 19:55:00 - [127] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: Awesome Possum Oh really? Yes, oh really. Now you are mixing moral with ethics and with believe. ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group Quote: It can hardly get any more foolish now. it sure can, you can keep replying. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.28 22:11:00 - [128] Edited by: Whitehound on 28/07/2009 22:11:33 Originally by: Awesome Possum ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group What do you want to tell me? That you actually know something or that you have completely forgotten to make a point? Get back to the topic and do not post some cut&paste of Wikipedia. --
Sobach Gallente Fourth Circle	Posted - 2009.07.28 22:24:00 - [129] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Lumy Do you hold the same opinion about the child, possibly your child? Assuming you have any or want to have, of course. Effectively "it" is just an amalgam of 2 persons' DNA, conceived without tubes and stuff but more "naturally". Even if it might be sentient and have the capacity to learn just as well as you did when you was young (not that anybody would bother trying to teach it anything). You and your wife made it, you own it, you can do whatever the hell you want with it. For all intents and purposes, it's livestock. Already covered in a previous post. Keyword being "50% yours". I feel sorry for your kids, if you ever have any. Just because you donated part or all (in the case of a clone) of your DNA, it does not make the resulting life yours to do as you please. It's still a human being with his/her own free will, you can no more claim him/her as a property as any man can claim another man as property. It's called slavery, and for the most part it's outlawed today, for good reason. And before you bring back that 50% argument, it's also bogus. Would it be ok if both you and the other parent agreed to do xxxxx to the kid? after all, since both of you combined owns "100%" of the kid, it's obviously ok for the two of you to do whatever you pleased right? after all, without you two the kid would've never been born, so you obviously owns him/her right? Do you really need me to tell you what's wrong with that picture?
Munchees Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.28 23:04:00 - [130] Originally by: Sobach I feel sorry for your kids, if you ever have any. Just because you donated part or all (in the case of a clone) of your DNA, it does not make the resulting life yours to do as you please. It's still a human being with his/her own free will, you can no more claim him/her as a property as any man can claim another man as property. It's called slavery, and for the most part it's outlawed today, for good reason. And before you bring back that 50% argument, it's also bogus. Would it be ok if both you and the other parent agreed to do xxxxx to the kid? after all, since both of you combined owns "100%" of the kid, it's obviously ok for the two of you to do whatever you pleased right? after all, without you two the kid would've never been born, so you obviously owns him/her right? Do you really need me to tell you what's wrong with that picture? You mean I can't force my kids to live my dreams that I had but failed to achieve? Originally by: Mr Reeth Why is it every time I read somebody call all Americans stupid I hear it in a British accent and think of this
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.28 23:16:00 - [131] Originally by: Whitehound Edited by: Whitehound on 28/07/2009 22:11:33 Originally by: Awesome Possum ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group What do you want to tell me? That you actually know something or that you have completely forgotten to make a point? Get back to the topic and do not post some cut&paste of Wikipedia. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ethic?view=uk http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic Opinion, not fact, no such thing as universal truth/ethic/morality/right/wrong. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.07.28 23:37:00 - [132] Edited by: Akita T on 28/07/2009 23:39:04 Originally by: Sobach Originally by: Akita T Already covered in a previous post. Keyword being "50% yours". I feel sorry for your kids, if you ever have any. Just because you donated part or all (in the case of a clone) of your DNA, it does not make the resulting life yours to do as you please.[...] Ah, good, you DIDN'T read the appropriate post. Better said, you read it, but you didn't undersand what it meant. Or, more precisely, you completely misinterpreted the tone - you can be forgiven, it's hard to express that in writing, so confusion is easy. EVE issues\|Mining revamp\|Build stuff\|Make ISK
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.28 23:44:00 - [133] Edited by: Whitehound on 28/07/2009 23:47:28 Originally by: Awesome Possum Opinion, not fact, no such thing as universal truth/ethic/morality/right/wrong. I know what we are talking here about. Do not show me the links. It is good that you finally have used a dictionary if that is what you want to tell me, but now put some thought behind it. Justice is not universal either, but do you see anyone saying that murder should be allowed because of justice not being exactly the same everywhere? So what is your point?!? --
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.07.29 00:28:00 - [134] Originally by: Sobach [...]It's still a human being with his/her own free will, you can no more claim him/her as a property as any man can claim another man as property. It's called slavery, and for the most part it's outlawed today, for good reason.[...] Would it be ok if both you and the other parent agreed to do xxxxx to the kid? after all, since both of you combined owns "100%" of the kid, it's obviously ok for the two of you to do whatever you pleased right? after all, without you two the kid would've never been born, so you obviously owns him/her right? Do you really need me to tell you what's wrong with that picture? And let's get back to this issue, on an almost completely unrelated (thread-wise) subject that bugs me... Just because you would have the right to do anything to your kid doesn't mean you WOULD do the worst imaginable things to him/her. It's like saying "you shouldn't have the right to speak freely, because some people would abuse that right to spew harmful nonsense". Well, newsflash, some people do, and still, we defend the right to free speech. So yes, if BOTH parents would manage to agree on something regarding their child, they should have the right to do it. Have YOU ever had a child ? Do you have ANY idea how "normal" parents feel about their children ? And do you know WHY that is so ? Also, I suppose you were never married either, or weren't paying much attention to your parents either, because then you'd know how hard it is for them to agree on what would be best to do about trivial matters, let alone vital matter, like, oh, say, their own freaking child. Yes, there are some parents who abuse their children. It's not uncommon among poor rroma families to physically maim some of their children so they would make better beggars (it's not like there's a shortage of them, family size of 8 to 12 is not uncommon). Do you think ANYBODY enforces any kind of child-protection laws against those people ? Do you think that if they would be punished more severely they would stop ? It's not like the laws aren't in place, but good luck proving it was them that did it, or that it wasn't just an accident. Heck, they could probably BEAT THEIR OWN CHILDREN TO DEATH if they wanted to, and still nobody would be able to prove the parents did it. Ok, maybe in the USofA that would happen... or at least, in SOME parts of the USofA and parts of other so-called "civilised" countries... but you can't deny that all of this happens on a scale large enough to be frightening. Am I defending these people ? Am I advocating the right for those people to do that ? OF COURSE NOT. I am merely stating the fact that some people do that, morals and laws be damned. On the other side of the spectrum, you have people that even if they had the legal right to do anything they would still do whatever it is they are doing right now and nothing else. So... would you deny the parents of a terminally ill child the right to terminate their own child's life ? Because, basically, that's what you're advocating. Sure, let the littlest cancer patient scream, moan and soil himself to death even if under doses of morphine that would kill a "clean" healthy adult, because assisted suicide is morally wrong somehow for some reason, and parents shouldn't have the right to decide their children's fate. Oh... wait... what do you know... parents DO HAVE the right to decide their children's fate - they can, ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS deny treatment to children that could actually GET WELL if they were treated ! Or, they can deny vaccinations to their child, and put him at grave risk of... well, anything. Hmm... I wonder how that's any different. Oh. RIGHT... I forgot... stupidity, ignorance and/or incopetence is a perfectly valid and LEGAL excuse for what is basically criminally negligent homicide... but on the other hand, smart, educated and competent ones have no say. EVE issues\|Mining revamp\|Build stuff\|Make ISK
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.29 00:33:00 - [135] Originally by: Whitehound Edited by: Whitehound on 28/07/2009 23:47:28 Originally by: Awesome Possum Opinion, not fact, no such thing as universal truth/ethic/morality/right/wrong. I know what we are talking here about. Do not show me the links. It is good that you finally have used a dictionary if that is what you want to tell me, but now put some thought behind it. Justice is not universal either, but do you see anyone saying that murder should be allowed because of justice not being exactly the same everywhere? So what is your point?!? Re-read all my posts, I've made my points. 1. cloning cannot be "unethical" because there is no such thing as a universal set of ethics. 2. morals and ethics are opinions. 3. you're a moron 4. this thread isn't about murder, it's about cloning and its "ethical" implications (of which I posted my "ethical" viewpoint already) 5. YHBT;HAND ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
nahtoh Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.29 02:57:00 - [136] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: Whitehound Edited by: Whitehound on 28/07/2009 23:47:28 Originally by: Awesome Possum Opinion, not fact, no such thing as universal truth/ethic/morality/right/wrong. I know what we are talking here about. Do not show me the links. It is good that you finally have used a dictionary if that is what you want to tell me, but now put some thought behind it. Justice is not universal either, but do you see anyone saying that murder should be allowed because of justice not being exactly the same everywhere? So what is your point?!? Re-read all my posts, I've made my points. 1. cloning cannot be "unethical" because there is no such thing as a universal set of ethics. 2. morals and ethics are opinions. 3. you're a moron 4. this thread isn't about murder, it's about cloning and its "ethical" implications (of which I posted my "ethical" viewpoint already) 5. YHBT;HAND Just waiting for him to claim your a troll now, its the next step on his "how to win a argument on the internet" handbook... ========= "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
Munchees Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.29 05:25:00 - [137] Originally by: nahtoh Just waiting for him to claim your a troll now, its the next step on his "how to win a argument on the internet" handbook... It's not arguing, it's bashing your fingers on your keyboard in anger. Originally by: Mr Reeth Why is it every time I read somebody call all Americans stupid I hear it in a British accent and think of this
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.29 07:59:00 - [138] Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 07:59:10 Originally by: Awesome Possum 1. cloning cannot be "unethical" because there is no such thing as a universal set of ethics. By your logic nothing is either ethical or unethical and therefore must all be a bunch of crap. Your entire argumentation has come to the point that all your previous comments are only rant. Well done. Who is the moron here? --
Wild Rho Amarr Sniggerdly	Posted - 2009.07.29 11:19:00 - [139] Originally by: Akita T Third, how the hell would you NOT consider a clone property ? A clone would have exactly ZERO chances of existing naturally. Neither would a child who's conception and birth has been aided by medical treatment/intervention. This does not make the child less of a person or make them "property". It looks like the fundamental basis of your argument is that you would not see a clone as its own person because it would be created from your DNA or that it was created in a manner that would occur in nature. Since this whole debate is largely about personal opinions on the subject I'm not going to waste time with "right or wrong". I disagree with your view because I don't believe that these things are what defines a person (or any living organism) for that matter nor should they be treated/mistreated because of that context. The key point for me is that you are not cloning "you". You are creating a copy of your body but the mind (the person) inside it is something of its own. I'm not going to go into the Soul part since that whole section is purely down to whether you believe there is such a thing, and if so making up assumptions on it's behaviour and properties. Now cloning whole organs for replacements is a completely different story and something that makes alot more sense; it's quicker, easier and has a properly defined purpose/benefit.
Tallaran Kouros Caldari Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.29 11:35:00 - [140] Originally by: Akita T Third, how the hell would you NOT consider a clone property ? A clone would have exactly ZERO chances of existing naturally. What about a healthy man and woman whose ovaries can produce eggs but their womb is incapable of carrying a child to term? If the parents have the egg fertilised in the lab and then implanted into a surrogate mother to carry the embryo, is that child the "property" of the parents? After all, if the womb cannot sustain the embryo then the child has zero chance of occurring naturally... Quote: A clone is not the same thing as a twin, we lack the ability to do that - a clone will be a slightly DEGRADED copy of the "original"... if you would continue to clone a clone, and then clone the clone of a clone, you'd end up with something non-viable eventually. Sorry, analogue VHS tapes degrade as you copy them but genetic clones do not, so you would not end up with something non-viable. Quote: Now, if every human would have a soul, and that new lifeform is a perfect copy of you... well then, he either has PART of your own soul, or it has no soul at all. But we know that identical twins are formed from the one ovum that splits after conception. Since the Catholic Church believes in souls and believes that life begins at conception, why not ask them what sort of soul identical twins have, what with the ovum splitting after conception? It's a serious question and I would appreciate if any Catholic on the forum could answer it. Quote: Either way, killing it to harvest organs wouldn't amount to much more than cutting off a bit of pre-extended excess growth skin to replace some burnt skin somewhere else, or maybe performing a hemispherectomy (removing half of a person's brain) which is right now a valid medical practice... heck, it would actually be better than a hemispherectomy, because you're not diminishing the capacities of the "original" brain. Or do you object to that ? I don't know about the person you are asking this of, but personally I do object to it yes. A perfect clone of me would grow up to be genetically identical, look physically like me but would develop it's own personality based on how it was raised - it's a sentient being after all. Now, if you could manipulate the genome so that it was merely a biological machine with no self awareness, no sentience and no brain activity then that's a different question altogether and I would have little objection to it.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.07.29 11:36:00 - [141] Originally by: Wild Rho Originally by: Akita T Third, how the hell would you NOT consider a clone property ? A clone would have exactly ZERO chances of existing naturally. Neither would a child who's conception and birth has been aided by medical treatment/intervention. Incorrect. That child would have had a very low chance of existing, whereas a clone's chance of existing is not just practically, but also theoretically zero. But I have nothing against the rest of your argument EVE issues\|Mining revamp\|Build stuff\|Make ISK
Tallaran Kouros Caldari Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.29 11:59:00 - [142] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Wild Rho Originally by: Akita T Third, how the hell would you NOT consider a clone property ? A clone would have exactly ZERO chances of existing naturally. Neither would a child who's conception and birth has been aided by medical treatment/intervention. Incorrect. That child would have had a very low chance of existing, whereas a clone's chance of existing is not just practically, but also theoretically zero. But I have nothing against the rest of your argument What about the scenario I present? The child born as a result of the procedure would have exactly zero chance of existing otherwise as the biological mother's womb is completely incapable of carrying the child to term.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.07.29 12:20:00 - [143] Originally by: Tallaran Kouros What about the scenario I present? The child born as a result of the procedure would have exactly zero chance of existing otherwise as the biological mother's womb is completely incapable of carrying the child to term. There's no such thing as "exactly zero chance" (just an infinitesimally low chance) except if the mother would have had its uterus removed altogether (and even then, if that wouldn't have been removed in the first place, there still might have been a chance). Meh, it doesn't really matter all that much anyway - see previous long posts for why this is only a minor technicality, the rest is much more relevant. Point being, if you really want me to play devil's advocate and bring all of the logic to its *seemingly absurd conclusion*, then I'd have to say the core concept of the current moral belief of "every human life is sacred" is fundamentally wrong. No, not each and every human life is sacred, not more sacred than the life of the cow we slaughter for the hamburgers. Basically, the polar opposite of PETA - it's not that animals should be treated as humans by default, it's that humans should be treated as animals by default too, and only "earn" the right to be treated as a human barring some level of accomplishments. EVE issues\|Mining revamp\|Build stuff\|Make ISK
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.29 12:47:00 - [144] You people using 'natural' as a straw man again? -------- Ideas for: Mining
LUH 3472	Posted - 2009.07.29 13:09:00 - [145] Edited by: LUH 3472 on 29/07/2009 13:18:51 cloning comes out of fear of wanting to create something better for me in this world that is me all the while you fail to realise the me with all its conceptions holding you into a tiny box intelligence is that which is beyond that me pervading all space if you had it and allowed for it since it is not limited to anyone place cloning would not cross your mind at all it will break your neck everytime until you come to understand YOU better come to understand that tbh
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.29 13:25:00 - [146] Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 13:35:36 Originally by: Akita T Basically, the polar opposite of PETA - it's not that animals should be treated as humans by default, it's that humans should be treated as animals by default too, and only "earn" the right to be treated as a human barring some level of accomplishments. So unless you have accomplished something do you belong on a leash? I like how you think ... ... A woman needs to be chained to a stove until she has fixed a man a meal! --
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.07.29 14:26:00 - [147] Computer, make me a sandwich EVE issues\|Mining revamp\|Build stuff\|Make ISK
Drunk Driver Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.07.29 15:46:00 - [148] Originally by: Akita T Computer, make me a sandwich I want the feature also!
LUH 3472	Posted - 2009.07.29 16:02:00 - [149] Originally by: Drunk Driver Originally by: Akita T Computer, make me a sandwich I want the feature also! atleast for a laptop there could come out like beer i wonder how this slot would be called
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.29 16:16:00 - [150] Originally by: LUH 3472 atleast for a laptop there could come out like beer i wonder how this slot would be called Slot... beer... port... Export! --
TestAlt1	Posted - 2009.07.29 16:27:00 - [151] All this arguing over ethics and morality could be solved by tailoring the clones DNA/personality so it actually wants to sacrifice itself for its "original", like the cow in restaurant at the end of the universe
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei	Posted - 2009.07.29 16:36:00 - [152] Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 29/07/2009 16:37:32 Akita, a grown Clone and a functioning Brain is a person and therefore falls under the Laws that protect an Individuum, for good reason. It is a faulty logic to assume that a Clone has no rights because he was created by artificial means and would not exist without the Original. If you really want to use this logic, then you would have also have no Rights, since you were created from your Parents Genes and since the Genes you are made of, come from your Parents, you are your parents property. Also twins who came from the same Egg are in a way a natural Clones of each other, but still with different personalities. A Clone would be same to you as a twin Brother/Sister and when it begins to make his own experiences he/she will become a different person. Quote: Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.29 17:18:00 - [153] Originally by: TestAlt1 All this arguing over ethics and morality could be solved by tailoring the clones DNA/personality so it actually wants to sacrifice itself for its "original", like the cow in restaurant at the end of the universe I believe it is possible to create a clone that lacks higher brain functions, and perhaps comes with four arms and legs as a reserve of human limbs. The problem you would then have is that you will not always get a 100% perfect yield out of the production process. Some clones may turn out to be completely malformed, others turn out to be real human. You would have to sort out the good clones from the malformed clones and the occasional human. This would be a macabre future. --
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.29 18:09:00 - [154] Originally by: Tallaran Kouros What about a healthy man and woman whose ovaries can produce eggs but their womb is incapable of carrying a child to term? Then that woman is not healthy, is she? A woman's body is made to exist as the life support system for the womb, to produce kids. If her womb is incapable of carrying a child to term than her body is faulty and cannot be considered 'healthy'. @Wolfhound: Moron ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.29 18:23:00 - [155] Originally by: Awesome Possum A woman's body is made to exist as the life support system for the womb, to produce kids. If her womb is incapable of carrying a child to term than her body is faulty and cannot be considered 'healthy'. @Wolfhound: Moron /facepalm Let a woman decide if her body is faulty. Do not post any more of this, please. --
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.29 18:35:00 - [156] Originally by: Whitehound Let a woman decide if her body is faulty. Do not post any more of this, please. The male of any species exists to fertilize the female. The female of any species exists to give birth to offspring. Anything else is filler. Keep posting, it makes me look better than I already am. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.07.29 19:09:00 - [157] Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk I didn't read 4 pages of arguments on something that isn't going to happen in our life times. Are you in your 80's or something? Whether outlawed in some regions or not, a reproductive cloning of a human is almost a certainty during my lifetime, assuming I have an average lifespan for my region. It may even have been done already. Most geneticists will tell you as much. Now, deliberate genetic modifications in the sense of "designed clones", that is something that may not happen during my lifetime. However, legislation enacted now or in the near future, may very well affect the likelyhood of various scenarios happening, or at least adjust their schedule. Ps. Saying "I'm right, you're wrong" is not a very effective argument. It makes you look like a child. If you don't have the means, or the energy, to discuss something, it's better to just take your leave, instead of embarrasing yourself.
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.29 19:11:00 - [158] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: Whitehound Let a woman decide if her body is faulty. Do not post any more of this, please. The male of any species exists to fertilize the female. The female of any species exists to give birth to offspring. Anything else is filler. Keep posting, it makes me look better than I already am. lol --
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.29 19:44:00 - [159] Originally by: Whitehound lol A well thought out rebuttal, I completely concede to this infallible logic. Good fight, sir. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.07.29 19:45:00 - [160] Edited by: Qui Shon on 29/07/2009 19:46:19 Originally by: Akita T The difference between a clone and a child is... radical, to put it mildly. There is NO difference between the two when it comes to human rights, which are universal for all mankind, as per the declaration in 1948 and it's later additions, in all civilized countries. (Even if the list of those might have grown shorter in recent years instead of longer ) Quote: So who are you to come around here and tell me that giving a lot more power over children's lives to the parents would be a "bad" thing ? He's a member of the majority in western civilization, who feel like he does, that's who. I forget where you're from, but if it was one of the former east bloc countries newly included or about to be included into the EU, those same priciples will find their way into laws (if not already there) that will also be enforced. The latter might take a while, but it'll happen even in backwater presently-poor-as-dirt and behind their times villages in obscure locations (as long as their within the EU). Well, nothings perfect, so at least in most cases. Quote: Third, how the hell would you NOT consider a clone property ? A clone would have exactly ZERO chances of existing naturally. "Naturally" means nothing. I didn't take you for a bible thumper. Unless I'm mistaken, I recall some comments of yours to the contrary. But this? This is every bit as bad as any loony creationist yahoo nonsense. "Naturally"...pfft. I'm disappointed Akita T. You were my hero back in the days of your unravelling of the stacking nerf mystery, as well as subsequent threads of that type. Now this....drivel...about ever DEGRADED copies and all types of artificial conception having a chance to occur naturally.... I mean, that you'd turn out to be a sociopath who wants to eat his cloned babies , okay, too bad but that's life, evil abounds. The bit in the previous paragraph though...
THE L0CK	Posted - 2009.07.29 19:48:00 - [161] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: Whitehound Let a woman decide if her body is faulty. Do not post any more of this, please. The male of any species exists to fertilize the female. The female of any species exists to give birth to offspring. Anything else is filler. Keep posting, it makes me look better than I already am. I do have to make note that it is the male Seahorse that gives birth to its young. Other than that it pretty much holds true. Damn you National Geographic for making me remember useless trivia in life. Originally by: Whitehound If I think, but I do not.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.29 19:51:00 - [162] Originally by: THE L0CK Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: Whitehound Let a woman decide if her body is faulty. Do not post any more of this, please. The male of any species exists to fertilize the female. The female of any species exists to give birth to offspring. Anything else is filler. Keep posting, it makes me look better than I already am. I do have to make note that it is the male Seahorse that gives birth to its young. Other than that it pretty much holds true. Damn you National Geographic for making me remember useless trivia in life. This factoid has completely destroyed my argument and all of my posts are now null and void. Damn you NatGeo! ♥ Wreck Disposal Services

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.