Human cloning: Good or bad?

[Sl'askia]

Originally posted by Rettick:
Natural Selection is already non-existant in Humans.

Alas I am aware of this...it is too late to go back now, unless some major catastrophe (like an astroid hitting the planet) happened that wiped out most of the human race.

Originally posted by Rettick:
I think it is unfair that anybody is denied the opportunity to survive. I know your statements were in no way intended to suggest this, if we took them to their logical extreme, we would be killing people with genetic disorders at birth, so that their disorders are not passed on, and then we are back to Hitler's old ideas about Racial Purity...

Aye, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Like I said...it is too late to turn back. I do believe the stem cell research is a great opertunaty to help those it can benefit.

Originally posted by Gluk Schmuck:
Which cells? Stem cells? It probably wouldn't need to be killed, but it may disable it.

Sorry to be the barer of bad news...but the embryo is destroyed when the stem cells are harvested...thus a possible human life ends before it can truly begin. This is what a lot of people are in an uproar about.

Originally posted by Gluk Schmuck:
Humans like humans because they like their same species but what's to stop us extending our liking to all primates, all mammals, all animals even? (I want an answer to that)

What's to stop us? Those that only care for themselves and what profits they can make off of the demise of other living beings...unfortunately...there are far too many like that...

Back on the subject of cloning itself...the cloning of organs (just the organs not the whole person) I see as a good method to help all those needing transplants and limbs replaces. However the cloning of a whole human...I am not sure about. It has the protential of being used for evil purposes...but then anything else I would say about it would go back to my 'Natural Selection' rant...

Edit: oh I almost forgot...if anyone is interested here is a link to a message board on a news site on the subject.
http://boards.go.com/cgi/abcnews/req...sc_cloning1126

Be warned...a lot of the topics (at least the ones I read) almost always end up in a religious debate....

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Dragadon ]

[Doug]

Originally posted by Rettick:
Clones are not meant to be identical to the original being. Genetically, they are the same, but like all living beings they must grow up. Presumably, they will not be brought up in identical conditions to that which their 'parents' were...

Sorry, Rettick, but clones are meant to be identical to the original being. That's because people interested in cloning are only interested in the genetic aspects of it. Your point about there being an environmental aspect to what one becomes is well-taken, but it's not necessarily a 50-50 nature/nurture deal. There is a growing suspicion that nature (genetics) far outweights environmental factors. So, yeah, clones wouldn't be absolutely identical in all respects, but pretty darn close.

With regard to Black Dragon's points about "test-tube babies" and infertility drugs, I have a hard time with the idea of telling an infertile couple "Sorry, we've got to weed your infertility genes out of the gene pool, so you can't make kids with your own gametes," especially when there are many causes for infertility besides genetic ones. For example, getting polio rendered many males completely sterile. Their genetic predisposition to getting polio was shared with most, if not all, of the population.

Dragadon: it is too late to go back now, unless some major catastrophe (like an astroid hitting the planet) happened that wiped out most of the human race.

Dragadon, why are you so nostalgic about natural selection, except for the fact that it's "natural?" I'm all for finding a way to wipe out genes for stupidity, bigotry, chauvinism, etc., but I don't think that nature has a good handle on that. On the other hand, I don't see a need for natural selection to wipe out genes for lack of immunity to smallpox when a vaccine is readily available.

[Steve]

morals are only a problom if you have ethics come on be blackhearted j/k. well for natural selection I believe that there should be a way to weed out the stupid such as a law stating you must be able to bring up your child without any possible things going wrong (child abuse ect.) but then your personal liberty's would be taken away but if I found a few trillion dollars lying on the ground I'd buy a country and make that law.

[Doug]

Steve, your proposed law reminds me of a movie line that Keanu Reeves says (Parenthood?), where he says something like: You have to get a license to own a dog, but any idiot can have a kid.

If you find a few trillion bucks lying around, would you mind sharing it with me? I really want to buy an XBox.

[Sydney]

As Rettick said, if we look at these embryos as potential humans, then how far back are we willing to go before it becomes "okay" to prevent this human from developing? Every sex cell has the potential (when combined with a second) to result in a human, so is it criminal to deny so many life? I honestly don't think the embryo will have any bones with us (pardon the pun) for taking its life. At the stage when scientists harvest stem cells, the embryo hasn't yet decided if it will form one or two organisms. It's just a cluster of cells. Not a person.

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Sydney ]

[Sl'askia]

Basically for me it bowls down to what humans have done with the planet as a result of over population and greed. If we as the most dominate race on the planet don't wake up and realise what we are doing to the Earth now (sometimes I think it is already too late), nature will strike back and in a horrible way. In a way it is already happening...you have bacteria that is resistent to most if not all known antibiotics popping up, you have your STDs like AIDs that currently have no cure, and a few other dieseses as well. Oh and conditions that have been known to be genetic as well...like breast cancer. Some common minor conditions that are not life threatening too, like near/farsightedness. Why? Because by not letting natural selection take place the way nature intended we are not allowing our species to adapt to the ever changing environment. Instead we let technology do the adapting for us...but the thing is...Mother Nature can change a heck of a lot faster then we can develop a new vaccine, antibotic, or other treatment.
I will say this...I would let nature deal with me as it sees fit. If it deems me unfit...so be it, that would be my fate. I wear glasses (i am very nearsighted), have high cholestrol (which I am not taking medicine for FYI), and I have an increased risk of getting breast cancer because my mother had it. Do I care how long I live? No. It is the quality of ones life...not its length...that truly matters. After all...with life...comes death, it is the way of things...

[Doug]

Originally posted by Dragadon:
Basically for me it bowls down to what humans have done with the planet as a result of over population and greed. If we as the most dominate race on the planet don't wake up and realise what we are doing to the Earth now (sometimes I think it is already too late), nature will strike back and in a horrible way. In a way it is already happening...you have bacteria that is resistent to most if not all known antibiotics popping up,

I share your concerns with what we are doing to this planet, but I think we need to distinguish the good (e.g. vaccines and other medical advances) from the bad (e.g. genetically engineering plants to create sterile seed so the genetic engineers can corner the market on seed, not to mention general abuse to the planet in the forms of pollution, etc.).

conditions that have been known to be genetic as well...like breast cancer.

Breast cancer as with most cancers will not be eliminated by natural selection because they generally occur well after the age of reproduction; the genes are already passed on to the gene pool before the elimination of the gene carrier.

Instead we let technology do the adapting for us...but the thing is...Mother Nature can change a heck of a lot faster then we can develop a new vaccine, antibotic, or other treatment.

Evolutionary changes take thousands if not millions of years. Even granting the existence of a genetic mutation which provides, for example, immunity to smallpox, it takes many many generations exposed to smallpox to eliminate the gene for susceptibility to smallpox. If there is no existing gene for resistance to smallpox, the human gene pool is dependent upon a genetic mutation happening (which may not happen) that provides resistance before the evolutionary process can even begin.

I will say this...I would let nature deal with me as it sees fit. If it deems me unfit...so be it, that would be my fate. I wear glasses (i am very nearsighted), have high cholestrol (which I am not taking medicine for FYI), and I have an increased risk of getting breast cancer because my mother had it. Do I care how long I live? No. It is the quality of ones life...not its length...that truly matters.

Natural selection has nothing to do with the length of time that a single individual lives. It relates to an individual's ability to live long enough to procreate. If she/he can procreate, her/his genetic makeup has been "selected." I do care how long you live, though, Dragadon. I hope that you live as long as any human could possibly expect with as good a quality of life as anyone could expect. And I'm glad that you avail yourself of the modern technology of optical correction of eyesight so you won't stumble into a paramite nest and meet an all too untimely end.

[Gluk Schmuck]

Originally posted by Rettick:
Evolution in Humans no longer occurs by Survival of the Fittest, it already occurs by Survival of the Best-Looking... Whether or not this is a good thing, it is a fact. Nothing will change if people are cloned - Natural Selection is already non-existant in Humans.

According to a BBC 1 documentary looks can (or at least did) tell the observer weather the observee has certain problems.
For example, lots of men like blondes, the programme said that it was because things like spots appear clearer on them than brunette, which apparently has some connection to their health.


Oh, BTW, Richard Dawkins had a good idea of how to make humans live longer, it goes something like this:
"If the law were to be changed so that people could only reproduce after 40 then genes which pre-disposed their gene-machine (human) would be weeded out of the gene-poole." - (it's a quote from memory)
It's not a bad idea.


I think that the abortion law should be used on all embryos. I.e. if it isn't aborted before a certain time it is given human rights. Apparently new-born babies don't have a conciousness anyway, i think.

[Steve]

gluk schmuk brunette hair can hide discoloration in the face and discolorations normaly means disease also I might have seen that same program. if someone doesn't have a kid until 40 they are more likly to die while in labor/die while raising the kid causing the kid to have grief early in life it would only work if you made the age gradualy later and later.

near/farsighted never was a disadvantage because we lived in tribes and the sight that they can see is normally better so people who couldn't see up close would have much better aim with a bow and arrows and could sight prey at a long distance and people who saw close could make sharper weapons carve carcasses better.

[Sl'askia]

Originally posted by Doug:
but I think we need to distinguish the good (e.g. vaccines and other medical advances) from the bad (e.g. genetically engineering plants to create sterile seed so the genetic engineers can corner the market on seed, not to mention general abuse to the planet in the forms of pollution, etc.)

I agree there, I never said (nor am I accusing you of saying I did) that we should just stop using all modern technology. That would cause too much unnecessary suffering, which I do not want.

Originally posted by Doug:
Breast cancer as with most cancers will not be eliminated by natural selection because they generally occur well after the age of reproduction

In age's past humans didn't live long enough to develop it...so it wasn't an issue then, (so perhaps that was a poor example for my point). Now that humans are living much longer lives (up to around 80 or so), they have to deal with the effects of age.

Originally posted by Doug:
Evolutionary changes take thousands if not millions of years. Even granting the existence of a genetic mutation which provides, for example, immunity to smallpox, it takes many many generations exposed to smallpox to eliminate the gene for susceptibility to smallpox

But such illments(like the flu and common cold) are/were wide spread across the world do to mankinds need to explore new areas (the Europains brought small pox to the Americas and the native Americans gave the Europians Syphillus(sp) for example). Why does that happen? advancement in technology...

Originally posted by Doug:
And I'm glad that you avail yourself of the modern technology of optical correction of eyesight so you won't stumble into a paramite nest and meet an all too untimely end

Aye...I go ahead and wear glasses because it improves the quality of my life. If I didn't have them I wouldn't be able to see well enough to do the things I enjoy the most (draw, write stories, etc).

Originally posted by Doug:
Sorry, Rettick, but clones are meant to be identical to the original being.

I think Rettick was refering to the personality...not the genetics. Sure we may inherit certain key aspects of our personality (ie. most members of my family are quiet and withdrawn in someway), but only the 'aspects'. The rest of what makes you 'you' is how you grow up.

Edit: I so hate it when I forget the '/' in the end tags...*grumble*

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: Dragadon ]

[Statikk HDM]

No moral qualms? Is an embryo really just a cluster of cells? Were you once a bundle of cells? I was. Plus, the idea that it is morally righteous to kill in the sake of saving (potentially) here is revolting. Now what would one do with the cells once they harvested them? In a recent study, people given stem cells taken from embryos had horrible after effects. Case in point: Alzheimer's patients were given stem cells from embryos to get certain chemical giving cells and they were left worse off before, convolsing disabled wrecks of their former selves. The cells simply worked too fast for their own good and mentally and physically crippled the patients. Isn't it true that a scientist can much easier get non disabling stem cells from adults,placentas, and umbilical cords. I don't think it is right to clone simply for the slight chance of medical benefit. Face it:Nobody knows crud about how to use stem cells without potentially damaging people. Shouldn't we just leave the creating to the one who did the creating in the first place? I'm reminded of a joke. A scientist walks up to God and says,"God, you are now obsolete. We can create life through science and make just about anything else for that matter. In fact I can create a man with DIRT!" "Okay, says God," Let's have us an' old fashioned man making contest. First one to do it wins." The scientist stoops down to get some soil and God says"Not so fast buster, get your own supplies!"

[Steve]

PLEASE don't bring god(or any other diety) into this. also not knowing how to do something is the best reason to do it.

[Doug]

Thanks, Dragadon, for not taking offense (at least it seems you didn't) at my post. I don't generally relish engaging in controversial topics but somehow I got worked up by this one. I later hoped that I had not come on too strong.

Originally posted by Dragadon:
I think Rettick was refering to the personality...not the genetics. Sure we may inherit certain key aspects of our personality (ie. most members of my family are quiet and withdrawn in someway), but only the 'aspects'. The rest of what makes you 'you' is how you grow up.

I realize that Rettick was talking about the environmental influences on what a person eventually becomes, and I agree with his point that a genetically identical person would be somewhat different (primarily personality-wise, as you point out) by virtue of it being impossible to experience the same upbringing. My point was that scientists doing cloning research weren't particularly interested in that aspect -- that they were focused on reproducing identical sets of genes. I was probably taking offense at his suggestion that some of us didn't really understand what a clone was, which I shouldn't have done. Heck, between this stem-cell stuff and what the real point of all this research really is, it's pretty confusing. But interesting to think about.

[Sl'askia]

No prob Doug. It takes a lot to get me upset...and what you posted didn't upset me in the least. If it's one thing I do is respect others opinions and I expect the same from others (though not everyone does unfortunately...I am not saying anyone here doesn't). I normally don't get this involved in debates...as I see them mostly as 'no-wins' (like trying to beat a dead horse to death ya know?).

Its actually hard for me to keep talking about it without seeming to contradict myself. I think this is mainly because I think too much into the issue and look at both sides of the coin as it were. I suppose it is a unique trait of mine and one of the reasons why I am seem so 'uncaring' at times (I really do think I am an emotionless rock sometimes...ugh).

Yes I agree that this issue can be rather confusing...my head goes in many directions at once on topics like this so its hard to formulate an opinion. I often end up taking a neutral stance and just stay out of it. Example: Abortion: One the one hand I see it as a method of population control, but should be used only in cases of rape, incest, and health. On the other...it is still denying a new life from experiencing the wonders (and terrors) of the world...I mean...if the female didn't want the child there is always putting it up for adoption for crying out loud!
(now I was just using that as an example...I wasn't opening it up for debate!)

See what I mean? It makes my head hurt trying to figure what to say on a topic like this...
Blah...I got off topic...sorry. But before I leave...
Ditto to what Steve said...PLEASE don't bring religion into this debate! It would only end up in a religious debate and we are here to debate cloning not religion...

[Gluk Schmuck]

Originally posted by Steve:
gluk schmuk brunette hair can hide discoloration in the face and discolorations normaly means disease also I might have seen that same program. if someone doesn't have a kid until 40 they are more likly to die while in labor/die while raising the kid causing the kid to have grief early in life it would only work if you made the age gradualy later and later.

Thankee for filling in the gaps in my explanation. Urrgh, I'm getting forgetful in my old age.

[Danny]

EDIT: Everything I said here previously had either been said by someone else already or was simply not true. Oops.

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Rettick ]