Dope_plz Posted:

I believe cloning should be allowed,continued,etc. because well ppl prefer to use condoms and etc. So do dogs (jk) but anyway I think it won’t have a social impact because,well,clones are meant to be like the original,only…well…the same O_O No social impact because it’ll be like speaking to identical twins ‘ye know?

Cloning people and then genetically modifying them could be useful as well.

bump

I will respond to your desire for serious debate! I enjoy the philosophical, logical debate.

As for cloning, I think the possibilities are too numerous for betterment of society to not delve into. For example, you could clone meat to produce pain/suffering/abuse-free meat products for vegans to enjoy so that their consciences would be soothed, and fight world hunger in the process.

It’s much cleaner to make meat in a lab than it would be to have a pasture as well, and in trial studies in which fish meat chunks were lab-grown, they tasted the same as regular fish, so it is possible.

Also, resurrecting extinct species by use of cloning is a great way to help offset the catastrophic damage we’ve done in the past to places like rainforests. Problem with that is that by isolating the genes of a single organism and making it the patron of the rest of the resurrected species, you create an intense genetic bottleneck that is the very reason inbreeding creates deformities. Any recessive or potentially damaging traits within the creatures’ genetic code would manifest in far greater numbers than it would’ve prior.

But, genetic issues > no animal. So that’s up to others to decide.

I think cloning things for testing is still not a great idea though. Creating something merely for the use of testing and pain is every bit as cruel as doing the same to a normal animal. So that’s a can of worms as well.

generichaxor Posted:

cloning for economic purposes is a great idea

and it increases our world’s biodiversity, which is good

My idea with the cloning for testing is that it saves an animal from being removed from nature. By putting an identical animal in its place and releasing the originally back into the wild, we get a test subject, and don’t upset the populations of test subjects

eg. a rabbit that we test something on

if i get a spare rabbit, then i dont have to kill the test rabbit

if i have no spare, then i just killed a rabbit

Most test subjects aren’t in any sort of danger, biologically speaking, so the whole “we now have one less rabbit.” argument doesn’t really matter. We got the phrase “breeds like rabbits” from somewhere, after all.

I would say ethical treatment takes precedence over population.

Lol, you’re killing a rabbit either way. While one may sound a bit more ethical or a more appealing rationalization, they both have equal results, except one costs considerably more.

Let’s be logical, now. Log in to see images!

generichaxor Posted:

cloning for economic purposes is a great idea

and it increases our world’s biodiversity, which is good

My idea with the cloning for testing is that it saves an animal from being removed from nature. By putting an identical animal in its place and releasing the originally back into the wild, we get a test subject, and don’t upset the populations of test subjects

eg. a rabbit that we test something on

if i get a spare rabbit, then i dont have to kill the test rabbit

if i have no spare, then i just killed a rabbit

Ever seen The Island? How about Six Days? This idea doesn’t sound nearly as appealing when you apply it to humans, and if you think laws will stop people when the technology is here then you’re out of your mind.

I don’t object to cloning, and I don’t think we can stop it, but at the end of the day cloned life isn’t any different from non-cloned life, ethically speaking.

generichaxor Posted:

point taken

so it has no bearing in terms of scientific research

but it has its benefits within its other uses

Agreed, there are many benefits.

More to the point, I don’t think it can be stopped. The technology’s coming, and when it CAN be done it WILL be done. I just hope people realize that the ethical issues that apply to the rest of us apply to clones as well.

generichaxor Posted:

which makes cloning as legitimate as birth

I’m not sure what you mean as “legitimate”.

Also, cloning vs. heterozygous reproduction has nothing to do with birth vs. test-tube babies. Clones can be birthed normally via in vitro fertilization, just like heterozygous embryos can be grown via non-birth methods.

generichaxor Posted:

correct

if a baby is born, it is legitimate imo

so the cloning process produces organisms that are just as legitimate as real organisms

so there should be no ethical questions about it

yet they still exist…

The ethical questions are all either rooted in ignorance or in metaphysical/religious arguments.

DarkDespair5 Posted:

Indeed, imo there are no ethical “questions” about cloning…

Good call.