The Cloning Issue - Should cloning be used to create the perfect human?

I'm surprised nobody brought this up yet, so I thought I might as well, since it still is a rather popular topic of discussion among the news and radio.

To clone, or not to clone? That is the question. As for me, if I was in charge of cloning the human race and controlling its factors as well, I'd lose my job faster than one could say "genetics". Being the person I am, I am strong-willed when it comes to expressing my opinion on what I think is right and wrong, and unless one can persuade me otherwise with hard, solid evidence, I will not back down.

Nobody, and I reapeat nobody has the right to play the part of God. Picking and choosing what qualities one wants in a person is not only morally and ethically wrong, it would also create quite a lapse in one's individuality in their small part of the human race as a whole. It's just not our desicion to make.

Imagine, a world full of people who have the all the qualities they want and they're absolutely perfect. Wonderful, right? Wrong! This would create a heirarchy, where people who were born through conception rather than created in a petri dish would be greatly surpassed in their perfect clone counterparts, where those that created the clones would soon be considered worthless and overthrown by the very clones that they themselves created.

In general, all humans desire the same things the rest of humanity does. Beauty, intellegence, strength, speed; what are these except qualities that most people have to work for? Individuality is what makes us human; flaws are what make us human. If everyone had these traits, these traits wouldn't be so desirable anymore, would they?

All in all, I really have no right to tamper in the human gene pool and eliminate undesirable traits, as it's those desirable traits that help us learn and grow; give us obstacles to overcome and conquer. I will never be in charge, nor do I really want to be, so this is my point: I do not and will not ever have a perfect human in mind, and in my opinion, neither should the rest of humanity.

However, the exception I can accept is the cloning of human organs as you're not really cloning the whole human itself. This method could be used to help save lives, and thus is a huge medical breakthrough, but cloning a whole human? What point would that prove except showing that it's possible?

What is your take on this guys?

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I don't really care about cloning. Those scientists can do as they please--if they manage to achieve this, fine. Yet I doubt any of this will happen any time soon. It's hard to make old genes from 10 years ago will fare well in a new environment--one good reason why many clones die early. Moreover, I don't think cloning has anything to do with controlling which genes are put into a human being. Cloning is just copying another being, with the same genes as that being. And cloning gives the organism traits that make it harder to survive rather than easier to survive.


On the other hand, personally I find that much of this controlling what genes are in a newborn to be mcuh worse. Perhaps some of it can be balanced out by the fact that evolution is change--and by striving for this new breakthrough, we are still just acting natural. On the other hand, filtering out undesirable genes can lead to a lot of discrimination. Even with our current technology of being able to test what genes are in a human, many people are already complaining about possible discrimination from insurance companies. With the ability to filter out undesirable genes, people will expect perfection to be the norm, and when anyone isn't perfect, discrimination will result. A lot of it will turn out to be like what was displayed in GATTACA, where the people who have disabilities are looked down upon entirely and are expected to perform menial tasks. With this, we could just be adding more social castes to the fire.

Also, the gap between the rich and the poor will be widened--this time not only by money, but also by a number of factors. The poor will not have the money to spend on some expensive gene surgery so that their babies can be perfect. Which means that the next generation of the poor will fall prey to sickness more easily (relatively, that is, compared to the rich) and be less competent at jobs etc. In other words, it just makes it harder for someone who cannot afford the filtering of genes, as they have 100 times worse competition to deal with. Thus, filtering out genes isn't necessarily a great breakthrough for everyone--only for those who can afford it.

On a different plane, I think we have the right to do whatever we wish. It's just the consequences that we have to consider. I mean, sure, we have the right to kill other people, but we must consider that we'll probably end up in jail or with the death penalty. Before we start randomly deciding to filter our undesirable genes out, we should think about whether it's needed, and whether or not its positive traits outdo its negative traits.

Moreover, succeeding in filtering out undesirable genes can have other affects. For instance, what if this newborn whom you filled with the genes you liked isn't liked by them? Isn't that not like violating what they want? Just because you enjoy a certain trait (this especially applies to beauty, as trends will change over time) doesn't mean that your children will.

In response to this, I think that perfection is only a relative matter. Our current ideals of perfection may be the achievement of wealth, beauty, physical strength, intelligence, health etc, but once we gain those traits, we'll have other, loftier views of perfection and wish that we could achieve those. Competition will still exist--just competition on a higher level. I mean, think back to the cavemen versus modern humans. Their view of a perfect life was probably to succeed at every hunt and bring food so that they can survive. Yet, our current view of success is less about survival, and more about...pleasure. Thus, what is perfection to them (survival) may not be perfection to us. The same goes for the future.

Also, about our filtering out undesirable traits--we've been doing that for a long time with other animals. So what gives us the right to breed certain dogs together just because we want certain traits from them? Why should we be allowed to control their lives? At least in the case of filtering out undesirable human genes we're only controlling our lives (though this may affect others' lives too, but I mean of immediate relevance), but with breeding dogs, we're manipulating others to fit our needs.

Btw, yeah, the clones could overthrow the ones who created them, but this all depends on what kind of education is going on. I still believe that environment has some root in determining a person's life, and that it's not all about genetics. Thus, if the clones were taught by their creators to have a certain view of life (that is, to be obedient and not rebellious), then they're more than likely to live a life of slavery. People won't think there's a better world when they have no access to knowledge. They'll assume what they have is the best they can get.

Cloning organs, well, I think that's fine, as long as that's used for good purposes. Yet, the poor-rich idea once again applies. It'll be a breakthrough, yes, but considering that it won't be commonplace, only the rich will be able to afford it. Thus, it'll only be helpful to the rich when the socioeconomically disadvantaged were probably the ones who needed it the most in the first place. So unless we can have equal access (which I find impossible), it won't be as good as it sounds.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Geez, and I thought my post was long. Whew!

Anyways, I'm going to have to yield to you there as you do have a point. But strength and speed do have a place in survival as well, as does beauty, which comes in handing when it comes to the mating game.

As for controlling an animal's traits, breeding them is a completely different matter entirely than cloning.

We use artifical selection on breeding, which I believe is acceptable because nature usually does this itself if given the chance. The better the genes, the better animal bred. Of course, this can cause inbreeding, which nature itself doesn't usually do, so it's a win-lose situation there.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

What about in Peter Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga where people are fitted with a memory chip and when they die or when they choose to they are cloned and the memory chip is implanted with all that person's memories? Different body, same person.

I have no problems with cloning organs or cloning out diseases, even if they can only prevent them. So what if some people are more susceptible, the diseases will dwindle with less people to prey on, wouldn't they?

I don't have a problem with cloning as long as the person being cloned has a valid reason such as medical reasons or if they are dead and it allows them to continue living. I wouldn't mind a clone of myself.

So some people might think it is morally or ethically wrong, ethics and morals come from what people think is right and 'not dirty'! I don't get them to be honest, what is the point of saying cloning is morally wrong and then going to watch television and seeing half-naked people walking around? It really depends on the society you live in and how technologically thinking that society is.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I agree with the idea of cloning organs would be fine but whole entities is wrong, but have no scientific reasoning to back it up (well currently the lack of ability to clone without severe chances for early death, but I am thinking if they perfect the cloning process). Basically I think the possible ethical (whether ethics are irrelevant to some or not, they DO exist so they should be accounted for) and psycological impacts of cloning could be too seever to warrant benfits of cloning whole people. Psycological impacts being the loss of a sense of individuality to both those cloned and everyone else really, as we would no longer truly be guaranteed our individuality was something we could take for granted from birth to death.

This topic has me thinking about the movie 'The Island'. I truly believe this would occur (not in the same way mind you) if cloning started being done on humans. Some members of the rich would create clones of themselves for 'spare parts' if anything ever happened to them. Frankly this idea disturbs me.

Another thing this topic has me thinking about is... who are we to assume the direction of evolution? We are saying we could pick and choose traits to basically perform evolution but better... but who says we'd be able to pick the right traits? Some make the argument that mentally or physically handicapped individuals are actually the next step in evolution. That the fact that these handicaps cause our society to work together to help one another and form a more singular conciousness or effort. I don't personally agree with this theory... but who knows.

Frankly I think we should do what we can to save lives, but not take things too far. We have enough people on the planet as it is and over population will become a major problem eventually regardless... we need not help it along by doubling up.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I think there is a major problem with cloning. There are too many scientists out there. Why do I say this? Because we are only human aren't we? And humans are diverse, you get the 'good' and the 'evil'. What were to happen if you come across a few 'evil' scientists. Who knows. They could clone the ultimate master mind like Hitler for all we know! O.K. enough of my ranting. Now I will go on.


Dogs (or other animals for that matter) are quite a different matter. Humans are the number 1 living being on this planet. If we start cloning humans, and it becomes the 'mainstream' thing to do, in the end we are destroying nature itself. By the time its all said and done, Our clones will be making clones! That just doens't sit well with me.

I don't want any kind of mutation personally. I really don't care if it would be competition on a higher level or not. I like the competion the way it is now. We were made a certain way, and if they wanted to maybe improve something, go ahead, clone some organs. But stay away from everthing else for crying out loud. It's terrible to see people dieing young of some liver disease or something. I see nothing wrong with more organs. But a 'best of the best' kind of clone would just spoil it for the rest of us trying to get by.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Less on the cloning issue and more on the "choosing traits" issue is one thing you should consider... is removing a genetic defect "Choosing traits"? Would you still oppose such procedures if you knew that, based on you and your spouse's genetics, that there was a high percent chance of you having a child with a major birth defect? Could you still say it's immoral to pick and choose traits if those 'traits' are actually detremental to a beings health? and if you feel that its ok as long as its to simply make them healthier... how is that any better? If we can't make us stronger to be more likely to survive how is that any different then making someone else less suceptible to a particular ailment?

Just to clarify so no one says I contradict myself, I like pointing out different thought patterns, not that I necessarily agree with them Its fun to keep people thinking.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

If you are talking about cloning an entire human being, i think we are still far from it. Well, at least not in a quality kinda way. Dolly the clone sheep has been shown to have problems. I'm not trained in biology/genetics... that kind of stuff... but reports have attributed the problem to telomerase. It is something that divides and as it does so, it gets "shorter" until its "lifespan" is used up. So a clone baby would not actually be a baby but rather an old man/woman if the baby is cloned using the old person's genes. Until various kind of problems associated with cloning technology is ironed out, we would not see a clone human for quite some time. The problem now is, of course, in the name of science, somebody is gonna try to clone a full human being. After all, our understanding of the human body and animals is not entirely perfect. Drugs that worked on animals does not necessarily work on humans. Cloning problems associated with animals might not be the same with humans. This is where i support legislation being drawn up to ban full human cloning. Something along the line of human assisted breeding. In artificial breeding, there are more than one fertilised egg but most of them are discarded after some time becoz there are problems associated with the embryos, if I can call it as such. I suppose there is a legislation of how long to keep the fertilized egg before it must be mandatorily destroyed, otherwise it is a crime. That same kind of legislation must be enforced on human cloning. Discussion about spare human body parts do not even crop up becoz the technology is not yet ready. When it is, society shall have another go at whether cloning a human being should be done or not. Right now, I feel strongly that it should not be done.


As to picking out which genes you would want, I am all for it. Again, the technology and our understanding of genes is not entirely perfect. As Jeigh has pointed out, if a couple knows that they have a genetic defect and there is a high chance that their baby would too, then picking out which genes in their artificially fertilized egg that does not contain the defects make perfect sense to me. We have to keep in mind that currently, our understanding of genes is quite limited. As such, those science fiction stuff of knowing who would turn out smart, beautiful, killers, serial rapists etc. is not yet quite within our reach. And personally, i don't think it ever will since we are not exactly animals and a large part of our actions is determined by our mind which is conditioned in large part by our environment.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I know we are nowhere near the point of selecting certain genes, but the point of it is just (to me) unreasonalble. I understand that it might be good to block out a certain gene the parents know the definetly have, but what happens beyond there? What else might get blocked as a result? The reactions of changing things will be in testing phases far beyond the imagination, even after it is appoved to be done.

Lets say you expect to change a gene that the parents know causes oh.. lets say something simple, like terrible near-sightedness. Now lets say by changing this gene it changes the path of a few genes behind it and it causes something wrong in the brain, maybe a cancer of some sort. Yeah I'm a doomsday kinda thinker, but ya gotta think of all the things that can go wrong here.

I mean maybe I'm even wrong for thinking they should be able to clone human organs, I don't know. I haven't given that one a whole lot of thought like clone a whole being. But my opinion on cloning humans and changing genes is a very strong and unchangable, NO!

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Okay, now that I have a problem with. I am going to have to agree with you with the sickness part, but the dead and keep them living is a whole different mater entirely. First off, creating a clone does not mean creating an exact duplicate of the cloned person with the same memories and reactions. It would be a whole different person, like identical twins. They look alike, but the have individual minds of their own. Also, who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Without death, we would have an over-population problem. Death is a part of nature that we just have to accept. Once someone is dead, they stay dead. End of story.

With mass cloning, not just for "spare parts" like in the movie "The Island", this technique could not be used just for spare parts, but for a whole new way to get cheap labor done, and then we would have slavery all over again, which then leads back to my massive overthrowing by clones ideas again.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)