Cloning Life?

[Slim_X]

Okay, so I've been looking into how scientists clone animals. I think it is wrong how they are cloning life and messing with the laws of life. Remember that sheep they cloned, Dolly? She died of early age because the DNA messed her life up. Soon they are going to try to clone humans, humans have souls a gift only given to us, you can clone cells/DNA, but not souls. If they do could you imagine the possible outcomes if life in humans. Cloning can change the way of life for not humans, but for all life forever.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I must have missed the part during those pre-natal visits when the doctor explained in which trimester my son's soul would develop.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Dolly died of a lung disease called Jaagsiekte (well, she was actually euthanized because of it), which is common among sheep, and her flock were notable carriers of it, so there's no connection between her cloning and her death. Also, there is no proof of a soul anywhere, and let us just assume that a soul does exist and only humans just so happen to be the ones given souls. It is my understanding that all humans of all kinds are given this unconditional gift by whatever deity is out there, whether they are the product of love, or ****. In the case of cloning, some would call it **** of the natural world, so would that not in turn count as soul-worthy if a human is born a clone? It's not like the human clone in question will be any stupider, and if said human decides to follow a religion faithfully, just to be told by a religious extremist that they will never see an afterlife because of what they are and for "who they're trying to be", that would cause catastrophic consequences to the person in question that can range from depression to a murder spree. Best case scenario, they hold to their faith and take it in stride. Also, to have no soul will not affect mankind anymore than mankind has been living now; have you seen some of the most horrible of human beings? From Hitler, to Vlaad the Impaler, to Charles Manson, and yet their DNA weren't altered in any way. They're humans many would agree would be devoid of souls. Your view goes beyond morals and into that of religion, and faith alone will not suffice to back up a view point.

 

[Slim_X]

Thanks yall for your contributions.

 

[Muhti]

Onto to food.Lets say I clone corn okay:

I have 1,000 corn in my farm and 750 of them were cloned by scientists. Now with that corn that was cloned had a gene where they rot faster or don't tend to grow properly, you're just screwed.

So now 750 corn have that ONE gene out of 1,000, that means they die out leaving 250 corn left, from there you will head into world hunger (if this was done to animals,fruits, and veggies) and rationing. From there you would head into extinction starting at the beginning of the food chain and then it'll reach to the Humani.

At first glance cloning animals & plants seems like a good idea, but if you look closely, it would be the most stupidest choice in all of humanity.

 

[GoldShadow]

Why would scientists clone a gene into corn that makes it rot faster or grow improperly? The purpose of splicing genes into organisms in agriculture is to make them better. Moreover, you're assuming that there's a shortage of corn or other genetically modified plants, and that any loss will translate to hunger/famine. Moreover, you're ignoring the fact that bioengineered, genetically modified plants and organisms have been developed/grown/sold for years now, with great success.

I suggest you read up on Wikipedia or something, and use that information before constructing your argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO).

Going back to the OP's argument: Slim_X, you're right that there may be something wrong with cloning whole humans, but I think you ought to dig deeper. For example, look at it from an ethical point of view instead of a religious one. What makes it wrong, ethically, to clone people?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Okay, what about cloning individuals who have no birth defects or diseases? It would seem pretty obvious the scientists would know to clone a selected specimen of food that was devoid of a debilitating gene. If cloned correctly, a healthy specimen that is cloned will result in another healthy specimen because a clone is a direct copy of everything that is the individual, including health.

 

[Muhti]

Why would scientists clone a gene into corn that makes it rot faster or grow improperly? The purpose of splicing genes into organisms in agriculture is to make them better. Moreover, you're assuming that there's a shortage of corn or other genetically modified plants, and that any loss will translate to hunger/famine. Moreover, you're ignoring the fact that bioengineered, genetically modified plants and organisms have been developed/grown/sold for years now, with great success.

I suggest you read up on Wikipedia or something, and use that information before constructing your argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO).

Going back to the OP's argument: Slim_X, you're right that there may be something wrong with cloning whole humans, but I think you ought to dig deeper. For example, look at it from an ethical point of view instead of a religious one. What makes it wrong, ethically, to clone people?

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFile...t-Kurti/Balint-KurtiJohalMaizeDisResist08.pdf

Please read this article and mainly down to page 3.

It tells you that diseases were found in the clones. So it isn't a false statement.

And also you have to realize Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Anybody can change the data on the page whenever.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Here's my view on human cloning:

It is not a good idea in general. While, yes, we can use cloning to - say - farm for organs needed to save the life of the original individual, it would require taking the life of the clone, who has become a complete individual. Even then, stem cell research eliminates the need for clones in that regard anyway. Some say it can be used as a way to give back a life that was taken away (like an infant that died prematurely, or soon after birth). The problem is that the cloned baby cannot truly take the place of the original, as each human being, including clones, have their own distinct character and personality, and while some may argue that infants haven't really developed a personality yet (which is debatable), it is still a separate sentient entity. Furthermore, human beings are not exactly stupid and does have a sense of self; should the clone realize or learn exactly what they are, it has the potential to cause major mental issues (as mentioned previously), including depression and/or anger, and maybe even jealousy for the original. A clone can be raised as a "twin sibling" with his/her original, and they will both have different views, personalities, wants, dreams, interests, etc.. I'm all for cloning if it means furthering the advance of medicine and food, but to clone a human being for whatever (usually selfish) reason is just plain **** of humanity, and a violation of the clone's identity themselves.

And also you have to realize Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Anybody can change the data on the page whenever.

Statements like this (downing Wikipedia) doesn't make you anymore right. While yes, information can be altered, it's rather uncommon for people to edit an article for the sake of putting false info. Furthermore, each article have references and external links at the bottom of the page detailing the sources from which it gets the information, so that the readers will know that the article has for the most part valid info 9 times out of 10.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I must have missed the part during those pre-natal visits when the doctor explained in which trimester my son's soul would develop.

If I were you I would switch OBGYN's cause my doctor from Christ Medical informed me that the soul starts forming small pockets in stem cells pre-blastula and confers totipotency to the cell on behalf of the permission of the Lord, Jesus Christ. The blastula is approximately composed of sixteen cells, representing the twelve apostles and the four gospels which carry their tale of the time with our Lord and Savior. The holy spirit leads to develop of man to resemble the face of God: usually a young white male with brown or blonde hair. If that baby is a variation, then it is due to a lack of Holy Spirit produced by a body formed by man that has fallen from sin and Jesus's power couldn't fully reach the child but he is still a child of God nonetheless.

 

[John2k4]

deleted .

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

For we have all fallen short of the grace of God and only in him do we have everlasting and eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, for whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Unless abortion. Then Satan's got that fetus and that fetus deserves it because Adam and Eve passed on a recessive genetic disease called Satanic Sin which all people carry one allele, but it's not a genetic defect if parents confer a single dominant gene to the child. Now when you have parents that approve of abortions, it's because they are heterozygous Satanic who haven't sought the medication of redemption. The child being born is without a doubt homozygous recessive for the trait making him a Satan baby and his soul is doomed by the disease. That's why those babies are aborted as God is all knowing and he knows that those babies need to be sacrificed for the better good of humanity.

 

[Kal]

Is this like Poe's Law turned up to 11?

 

[Dre89]

Being against cloning is just small-mindedness.

We have already broken boundaries and defied nature in so many ways its not funny. Things like contraception, agriculture, deforestation, medicine, technology, flight etc.

All these things are deviations from how we originally were. The only difference with those is that they were implemented before we were born and so they're normal. We're just against cloning because it's unfamiliar.

To a society that's practiced cloning for over a hundred years, it would be no different to something like contraception.

The reality is people don't like change and progression. Those people are going to be those narrow-minded grandpas in the future that no one wants to have a proper conversation with.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

It's a difficult topic to debate because a lot of people's arguments are clogged with emotions and hardly any valid points are raised.

I challenge everybody who thinks cloning is "wrong" to explain to me how it is wrong without using silly terms like "god", "soul" or "natural" to justify their believes. Who cares if you think that life is "meant to only happen once"? Last I checked, nature has not been proven to have such a thing as intentions and your personal interpretation of how life is supposed to be lived can't serve as basis for a legitimate argument either. So far only Sol Diviner has raised legitimate concern that it might cause mental problems to cloned people but I'm with Dre here and agree that it's more a question of people just having to accept it and getting used to it eventually.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Personally I don't agree with the concept of cloning a human. It's been my belief that your life is meant to only happen once, and even though it may be ended sooner for some, making a clone can be essentially "cheating death".

If the clones were created by "dumping" the contents (thoughts, memories, etc) of a person's entire brain, then issues would arise from time itself progressing. This seems to be the slightly maybe possibly feasible option, as opposed to "reincarnating" someone by giving a new body upon death.

The problem with keeping reserves/banks of a persons memories/current state of mind around would be the issue with time progression, as touched on above. Say you had your memories saved to a computer in 2060, and then a clone of you (with those saved memories) is brought into the world in 2100. There would be a 40 year lapse in both memory and knowledge, assuming you didn't go back regularly to have your saved memories updated.

This isn't about reincarnation or cheating death though; this is about cloning a person. Once a person is born - be it clone or otherwise - that becomes a totally separate sentient individual with their own thoughts, feelings and goals. The only thing that is the same between them and the original copy is appearance.

Your concept appears to fall in line with - say - Ghost in the Shell. In that sense, a clone body wouldn't be used more than an artificially created body, unless technology can evolve to such an extreme level to create a living being with what is essentially a completely empty brain for memories and sentience to be transferred into.

If cloning becomes an acceptable part of society, I could handle and accept the addition to modern medicine. My only concern would, again, be the potential for the clone's reaction when they realize they are effective just a copy; a "test tube baby", if you will.

 

[GoldShadow]

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFile...t-Kurti/Balint-KurtiJohalMaizeDisResist08.pdf

Please read this article and mainly down to page 3.

It tells you that diseases were found in the clones. So it isn't a false statement.

I just read the first five pages and skimmed the rest, and you have misinterpreted the article. It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Part 1 (the introduction) is just a general overview on maize and maize loss and why it is important to breed/clone disease-resistant lines, and even endorses the use of disease-resistant plants when it says, "Losses have tended to be effectively controlled in high-intensity agricultural systems where it has been economical to invest in resistant germplasm..." In other words, the use of cloned, disease-resistant lines prevents losses, it doesn't cause them.

Part 2 is just a general overview of the two types of gene-conferred disease-resistance in plants, quantitative and qualitative.

Part 3.1 I think is where you got tripped up. Part 3 is talking about early studies in plant genetics--that is, studies from the 50s, 60s and 70s on genes naturally found in plants/maize. This section is not about bioengineering, or cloning. It's about naturally occurring genes in plants, plants that were bred just like plants have been bred by humans for thousands of years. What it's talking about is cms-T maize--cms just means cytoplasmic male sterility, which is a trait that means the plant can't produce pollen on its own. This is a naturally occurring trait that was discovered over 100 years ago (see http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/sep0502.htm). CMS occurs in over 150 plant species naturally. The T simply refers to a specific subtype of cms maize that was discovered in Texas in the 1950s (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC160361/pdf/051285.pdf). CMS is a useful trait in maize because maize with this trait does not have to be detasseled, which makes the harvesting process quicker, more streamlined, and more efficient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytoplasmic_male_sterility).

Section 3.1 goes on to say that after this cms-T maize was discovered and put into widespread agricultural use, it was found to be susceptible to a specific pathogen because cms-T maize contained a protein called URF, encoded by the T-urf13 gene.

So this section has nothing to do with modern cloning or bioengineering techniques. It's only about some early studies that helped scientists figure out what kinds of genes facilitated disease in plants.

The rest of the article goes on to discuss disease resistance and plant genetics and molecular mechanisms of maize in more depth, and concludes by saying that modern bioengineering/cloning will be invaluable in creating plants that are resistant to loss and disease.

And also you have to realize Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Anybody can change the data on the page whenever.

Actually, Wikipedia is a very reliable source as long as it's not a page about someone/something very obscure. Pages on well-known and popular people/phenomena have high quality control, and even if somebody makes a false edit, it's changed back extremely quickly--not to mention that there tend to be so many sources that it's easy to cross-reference any given part of an article.

Seriously, Wikipedia helped me more than most of my textbooks when it came to science classes. My old lab PI used Wikipedia almost exclusively whenever he forgot something or wanted to explain a concept to us While it's not a source you should cite in a formal paper (for obvious reasons), it's a great resource to get an overview on a topic and a great jumping off point for further research.


By the way, if you want some ammo in your argument against cloning of genes into plants, you should read up on Bt/Starlink corn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Safety_issues


edit: of course, I think this is getting further and further from the OP, which is about cloning life, not just genes. Muhti, if you want to continue this, I encourage you to make a new thread about cloning specific genes into plants/animals

 

[GreenKirby]

Personally I don't agree with the concept of cloning a human. It's been my belief that your life is meant to only happen once, and even though it may be ended sooner for some, making a clone can be essentially "cheating death".

Not really considering, that clones are not gonna turn out to be exactly the same as the original. For starters, nurturing is different today than it was say 20 years ago.

And even then, the clone is still its own person.

 

[Dre89]

Not really considering, that clones are not gonna turn out to be exactly the same as the original. For starters, nurturing is different today than it was say 20 years ago.

And even then, the clone is still its own person.

Even if it's something that isn't effected by nurturing, deviations will still occur. That's basically how the progression from replication to the evolution of sexual reproduction occurred, through deviations in the replicas.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I'm betting $3 we figure out how to successfully clone humans before we develop sentient computers.