What do you think about cloning (animals or humans) ?
I need some opinions for a essay that im doing. :)
Printable View
What do you think about cloning (animals or humans) ?
I need some opinions for a essay that im doing. :)
we don't need to clone for food and we don't need human clones although cloning "cells" to help cure desease may not be a bad thing.
the only other thing i feel could be useful is cloning speces that are about to become extinct as a very last resort.
Cloning Parts of the Body I see no harm in.I mean if I am a soldier returning from Iraq and my leg is missing you can surely bet I would not mind.
I thin human cloning is a great idea.of course with stem cell research advancing more and more;like FC said,if sum1 needed a body part or sumting possibly with the knowledge they gathered cloning they could mayb grow that person a new part for w/e his/her needs.but with cloning equals more ppl in this world and plus we already have enuogh orphans.tho i still think human cloning should b done.sure we'll have accident and failres but thats how it works in the field of science.and fuck bush cuz he'll never allow it. <_<
I've always thought of human cloning as a bad thing. What if there were able to clone back in the days? Clone more Hitler's or Bin Laden's! It'd be chaos! :wacko:
:unsure:
you know... if you created a million clones of George W Bush, and put them in a room with a million typewriters for a million years, they would eventually write the world's greatest novel.
How does cloning parts of the body work exactly? Do the limbs/organs have to be attached to some type of, say, human-arm creature to provide a host for the organs until they are ready to be harvested? (Like the ear-mouse).
Or do we have to grow the limbs/organs in a huge vat? Stores of spleens, vats of verterbrae, that sort of thing.
The first idea seems repugnant, the latter seems very far off considering our current technological state.
"See Spot Run"? :huh:Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@18 May 2004 - 08:49
you know... if you created a million clones of George W Bush, and put them in a room with a million typewriters for a million years, they would eventually write the world's greatest novel.
cloning for medical research as in stem cells i agree with
but total coneing of a human is just wrong , who are we to mess with evolution
Though it could be argued that a species that can self-adapt through these techniques to it's environment could be the next step in evolution. Instead of taking millions of years to adjust we could literally "evolve" over night.Quote:
Originally posted by delphin460@18 May 2004 - 08:06
cloning for medical research as in stem cells i agree with
but total coneing of a human is just wrong , who are we to mess with evolution
In theory this sounds good (to me at least) though that tricky thing of human nature would more than likely get in the way...
Though it could be argued that a species that can self-adapt through these techniques to it's environment could be the next step in evolution. Instead of taking millions of years to adjust we could literally "evolve" over night.Quote:
Originally posted by Withcheese+18 May 2004 - 09:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Withcheese @ 18 May 2004 - 09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-delphin460@18 May 2004 - 08:06
cloning for medical research as in stem cells i agree with
but total coneing of a human is just wrong , who are we to mess with evolution
In theory this sounds good (to me at least) though that tricky thing of human nature would more than likely get in the way... [/b][/quote]
That scenario would require a monumental switch in morality. I tend to agree with you there. That technology is basically our grey matter evolving at an accelerated pace.
However, there is huge resistence, I think, in our own minds simultaneously. Scientists, Darwin included, have always wrestled with the morality of their research and the impact it might produce.
Darwin actually stayed the presses for some twenty years, fearing public and divine retribution.
Darwin was a devout Christian, so everything he was observing went against everything he believed in, it was a big problem for him.. :(
Cloning research will happen, whether it gets "banned" or not, so I think it should be carefully regulated, rather than banned. Like any research it can have either great benefits or great peril, depending how it is used.
Stem cell research is very exciting, for example they claim that in a few years they will be able to grow new teeth instead of having to fit dentures, etc, which is amazingly clever.
Also the possibility of replacing fingers and limbs can't be ignored, also internal organs such as kidneys, livers, spleens, even hearts and lungs.. The "ear on the mouse" scenario is ghastly, and makes a powerful image for the anti-cloning lobby.
Whether you would want to clone a whole person I'm not sure. The technology is a bit iffy, and genetic damage caused during the process could lead to horrendous consequences. If a new tooth goes wrong then you can just throw it away, if a new person goes wrong then this isn't the case.
As for cloning animals to save them from extinction, I don't think this is really viable. However part of me does feel excited about the possibility of some kind of "Jurassic Park" research going on, I don't think it will happen.
Its currently being discussed on "This Morning" (ITV 1) if your in the U.K :)
I want to say something like "We have enough dinosaurs around here already" but I'll probably get cyber-slapped. :P
No they wouldnt, thats the higher lifeforms such as Chimps.Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@18 May 2004 - 07:49
you know... if you created a million clones of George W Bush, and put them in a room with a million typewriters for a million years, they would eventually write the world's greatest novel.
It would take GW that long to figure out something happened when you pressed the buttons on the typewriter... <_<
Discussions about cloning always seem to end up mired in abstract arguments about "playing God", etc.
In other word...ethics and morality.
I think that the ultimate benefits of cloning research lay outside the obvious, short -term results that we can imagine now.
Just the advances in knowledge re: how we are put together/work will probably lead to improvements far surpassing the growing of new teeth ( or legs...whatever).
The pursuit of knowledge is a good thing and should not be stifled.
I don't think cloning should be "ban".
Fortunately Mr. Fugley, I don't think that even the most deranged scientist would ever clone a clown.
That would just be wrong.
They're already here.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@18 May 2004 - 18:24
Fortunately Mr. Fugley, I don't think that even the most deranged scientist would ever clone a clown.
That would just be wrong.
On a related note where does the term or catchphrase "Send in the Clones" come from?
I see it a lot in papers and quoted in films (like Judge Dredd off the top of my head) but have never figured out where it comes from... :blink:
Isn't it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can't move.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd stopped opening doors,
Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours,
Making my entrance again with my usual flair,
Sure of my lines,
No one is there.
Don't you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my timing this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year.
Phrase adapted and used by various people.
Cheers JP, I believe that Krusty the clown sang that in an episode of the Simpsons...though I doubt that was the original version. :lol:
If memory serves Sideshow Mel walked onto the stage at the end signing "They're already here" or somesuch. Or perhaps "Don't bother they're here". Stop hassling me about it ffs.Quote:
Originally posted by Withcheese@18 May 2004 - 20:12
Cheers JP, I believe that Krusty the clown sang that in an episode of the Simpsons...though I doubt that was the original version. :lol:
http://www.angelfire.com/yt/sitc/images/sitc2.gif
It occurs to me that people often cite mad scientists cloning Hitler (tricky, I believe, as I think the Russians cremated him) as a reason to ban cloning.
However, what about a less mad scientist cloning lots of Helen of Troys (no I haven't seen it - poor Homer, Doh!) or Cleopatras or Nefertitis - I think you can see where I am going with this. :)
I think The Boys from Brazil proves beyond any reasonable doubt that environmental conditioning would also be a factor.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@18 May 2004 - 20:55
It occurs to me that people often cite mad scientists cloning Hitler (tricky, I believe, as I think the Russians cremated him) as a reason to ban cloning.
However, what about a less mad scientist cloning lots of Helen of Troys (no I haven't seen it - poor Homer, Doh!) or Cleopatras or Nefertitis - I think you can see where I am going with this. :)
This is definitely true, because of science.
Absolutely agree that environmental factors are an essential element. Hitler's father's obsession with uniforms and beating young Hitler clearly had some effect on his son's outlook later in life. A Hitler clone raised by a Ozzy Osbourne type figure might be altogether different.
However, environmental factors (expect perhaps extreme poverty) would have little impact on my strategy to flood the world with eye candy - all in the interests of science of course. :o
I do believe that one of Hitler's testicles does in fact reside at the Albert Hall... :ph34r:Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@18 May 2004 - 18:55
It occurs to me that people often cite mad scientists cloning Hitler (tricky, I believe, as I think the Russians cremated him) as a reason to ban cloning.
However, what about a less mad scientist cloning lots of Helen of Troys (no I haven't seen it - poor Homer, Doh!) or Cleopatras or Nefertitis - I think you can see where I am going with this. :)
I do believe that one of Hitler's testicles does in fact reside at the Albert Hall... :ph34r: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Withcheese+18 May 2004 - 20:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Withcheese @ 18 May 2004 - 20:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@18 May 2004 - 18:55
It occurs to me that people often cite mad scientists cloning Hitler (tricky, I believe, as I think the Russians cremated him) as a reason to ban cloning.
However, what about a less mad scientist cloning lots of Helen of Troys (no I haven't seen it - poor Homer, Doh!) or Cleopatras or Nefertitis - I think you can see where I am going with this. :)
?
Is it in Concert there or something?
Theres a popular song from the era that implied he only had one to start with :ph34r:
?Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced+18 May 2004 - 21:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 18 May 2004 - 21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by Withcheese@18 May 2004 - 20:08
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
Quote:
@18 May 2004 - 18:55
It occurs to me that people often cite mad scientists cloning Hitler (tricky, I believe, as I think the Russians cremated him) as a reason to ban cloning.
However, what about a less mad scientist cloning lots of Helen of Troys (no I haven't seen it - poor Homer, Doh!) or Cleopatras or Nefertitis - I think you can see where I am going with this. :)
I do believe that one of Hitler's testicles does in fact reside at the Albert Hall... :ph34r:
Is it in Concert there or something?
Theres a popular song from the era that implied he only had one to start with :ph34r: [/b][/quote]
And Goebbels apparently had none.
Maybe we should clone them both to settle it once and for all.. :o
I'll go for cell cloning and even cloning of limbs and organs, but not of human beings. Human life would be cheapedened. Think about it. If you could clone a person, then the military could make soldiers, for example. War is already to easy for politicians to rationalize. With cloned soldiers, they would prob be relegated to 2nd or 3rd class citizens if granted citizenship at all. Through away cannonfodder. Thats just one example.
LIfe is already to cheap, especially here in the US. Not to get off topic, but we already toss babies in the trash before and after birth. We have drive by shootings and school murders etc etc going on on a dayly basis. With human cloning, we could just say "What the hell, if we need another him/her, we'll just make a clone."
The fact that we're a product of our enviromnment (Country, upbringing, schools etc.) seems to be lost on the general public. Memories can't be cloned.....yet.
Oh yeah, cloning soon to be extinct animals is ok too, as long as it's monitored closely. We gotta keep the eletist egg-head know-it-alls from tampering with the genetic structure. Making a super animal sounds cool until it wrecks it ecosystem because no other creature, predators for example, can control it's population growth. That's just one eco-wreck that comes to mind. The possibilities are endless. We're trespassing on the Devine, and we'd best 'tread carefully where Angels fear to walk!' An somewhat accurate quote but sums it up nicely.
Sorry for the long post. Chalk it up to to much caffeine. But that's my 2 cents, pesos, punds, lera or whatever.........
Later taters,
BoNe
As everyone knows, this is dangerous - he may sing. :ph34r:Quote:
Originally posted by longboneslinger@12 June 2004 - 17:10
The possibilities are endless. We're trespassing on the Devine, .........
Later taters,
BoNe
http://www.firstfoot.com/Bad%20Scott...ges/sydney.jpg
Imagine how would you feel if you were told you are a clone of someone else :unsure:
Why clone? The traditional way is much more fun :lol: