Human Cloning Web Sites

  • Thread starter Randolfe
  • Start date
  • #26
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
And besides that, who is going to determine what an enhanced human being looks like?
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Monique
First of all, Carlos and the others: go and rent GATACA from the video store.. it exactly plays with the ideas which are being brought up here.
Gatica was not a rational movie, the author was a Marxist and was biased in the portrayal of futurists. In fact, I have ample evidence that Hollywood is under Marxist control, or in other words, CEOs who have identical political/cultural beliefs, that of Marxism. No diversity of ideas in Hollywood. Actually, I think a better portrayal of what I personally like is the Falcon species Spok from Star Trek belonged to. They were very rational/logical/not sentimental. That's what I like. Or a species of Datas from Star Trek the new generation. This is just me, others can disagree. Try out the following site: http://www.transhumanism.org/
 
  • #28
33
0
Monique, they took your perspective of in vitor fertilization, and I dare you to give me one example of a murderer, drug addict, etc of any of the people that were created by this process.

Also, if you read it carefully, I said "HAS A CHANCE OF BEING BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY", and I mentioned nothing of some sort of absolute proof that they would be so.

I think it is worth mentioning that you need to study your history. The atomic bomb was created first. It was created as a means of desstruction, tested in New Mexico in 1945. It was used as an actual weapon on August 6, 1945 and again on August 9, 1094 in the two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't really say that it was a completely bad thing, for it ended World War II by forcing Japan and eventually the Axis of Evil into submission.

Comparing a clone to an atomic bomb; that really is something. Do you really think that the majority of the population will have one? Can you at least give me a reason as to why you think it would be so harmful?

If you can't or don't want to, at least tell me why you oppose cloning when you clearly acknowledge it probably wouldn't produce a phenotypical replica of the person. (Please try to think in terms of only a small number of people, ranging in the thousnds, which is where I would feel averag3e cloning would probably be placed for a long period of time)
 
  • #29
14
0
Originally posted by Monique

Second, why use cloning if you want to advance society??? Aren't there much better ways than just to look at an individual sculped by environment and genetics who seems to be good (I really wonder how you'd determine that, but anyway).
Dont you think cloning could be used to advance society? And if it could why not use it? There are other ways to do the advancement and these have all been used, this is new and if you are against it in principle then should others be stopped from using it.
Yes this depends on the choice of 'intelligent gene' and we dont know how to chose let alone describe these things.
 
  • #30
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
Originally posted by caumaan
Monique, they took your perspective of in vitor fertilization, and I dare you to give me one example of a murderer, drug addict, etc of any of the people that were created by this process.
.. and why do I have to do that ??

Also, if you read it carefully, I said "HAS A CHANCE OF BEING BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY", and I mentioned nothing of some sort of absolute proof that they would be so.
So you are just making statements made up out of air? How convenient.. but you must have a reason why you say that or at least have an hypothesis, otherwise you could as well have stated that 'It has a chance of being deleterious to society'.

I think it is worth mentioning that you need to study your history. The atomic bomb was created first.
I was thinking about the regret the scientists had of developing the bomb. You really seriously with your heart feel that the use of the bomb on Japan was a good thing?

Comparing a clone to an atomic bomb; that really is something. Do you really think that the majority of the population will have one? Can you at least give me a reason as to why you think it would be so harmful?
Didn't I already do that in my first paragraph in reply to you? I'll repost it :)

"HOW is cloning beneficial to society?? a. there are lots of orphans waiting to be adopted, b. the world is already over-populated, c. this would increase genetic homogeneity, d. there are psychological problems associated with expectations of such a child, e. the technique is very high-risk for the cloned organism."
 
  • #31
From http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mission.htm

"Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery. We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown. (Dworkin, 2000)"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
Gatica was not a rational movie, the author was a Marxist and was biased in the portrayal of futurists. In fact, I have ample evidence that Hollywood is under Marxist control, or in other words, CEOs who have identical political/cultural beliefs, that of Marxism. No diversity of ideas in Hollywood. Actually, I think a better portrayal of what I personally like is the Falcon species Spok from Star Trek belonged to. They were very rational/logical/not sentimental. That's what I like. Or a species of Datas from Star Trek the new generation. This is just me, others can disagree. Try out the following site: http://www.transhumanism.org/
I don't quite get what you mean here. So you think future society will be emotionless??

Why I mentioned GATACA, is that in that movie a society is dealing with genetic predispositions and genetic engineering, exactly the thing you are advocating.
 
  • #33
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
From http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mission.htm

"Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery. We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown. (Dworkin, 2000)"
Yes, and we are humans and we are able to realize the consequences of certain decisions and where unknown paths will take us.

I am not advocating the complete ban on cloning, I would like to see the ban on stemcell research removed, but ethics play a large role in scientific research and they certainly have to be taken into account.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Originally posted by Monique
I don't quite get what you mean here. So you think future society will be emotionless??

Why I mentioned GATACA, is that in that movie a society is dealing with genetic predispositions and genetic engineering, exactly the thing you are advocating.
Gattica portrays every person as identical, but, I don't advocate making everyone 100% identical. We still need some diversity in personality to make society functional.

Regarding emotions, I personally don't value sentimentality, but rather pragmatism and stoicism. That is just my idiosyncratic tendency. Others will differ.
 
  • #35
14
0
Originally posted by Monique
.. and why do I have to do that ??

"HOW is cloning beneficial to society?? a. there are lots of orphans waiting to be adopted, b. the world is already over-populated, c. this would increase genetic homogeneity, d. there are psychological problems associated with expectations of such a child, e. the technique is very high-risk for the cloned organism." [/B]
Points a, b are irreleavent. c is a BAD point (as opposed to a good point), d doesnt mean anything andd e applies only now so is irrelavent.

Yes we should play with fire.
 
  • #36
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
Gattica portrays every person as identical, but, I don't advocate making everyone 100% identical. We still need some diversity in personality to make society functional.

Regarding emotions, I personally don't value sentimentality, but rather pragmatism and stoicism. That is just my idiosyncratic tendency. Others will differ.
The movie's name is GATACA (after the four bases which make up our genome: CATG).

The movie did not portray every person as being identical, not at all.
 
  • #37
FZ+
1,561
3
You can clone rare geniuses whose genetic pattern rarely comes into existence. We can have thousands of Isaac Newtons, Wolfgang Mozarts, etc. So, why do I want this? Well, more geniuses means more technological/scientific/cultural advancement, and that brings me pleasure, so it is in my enlightened self-interest to promote cloning.
But that's besides the point. There are many better ways.

So, you believe in the creed of transhumanism, right? Transhumanism is about human eventually going above the current, with us guiding the evolution of our species. Ok. I have no problems with that.

But cloning obviously runs contrary to that purpose. Cloning isn't going to improve humanity. It is simply going to replicate our flaws.

Suppose we find that whatever made Newton is x percent genetic, and let go of the lack of evidence for a moment, and ignore any moral objections. So what? In his later life, Newton was a jerk. He wasted his life on alchemy, and was an ass to everyone he met. Do we want a clone of him? Most schoolkids can probably come up with the insights he took, without the additional madness. Mozart? Mozart was driven by a private passion. If that passion was genetic, then we'll get bored of his single passion. Cloning seems only to allow us to live in the past.

If we are to use genetics properly with a transhumanist goal, we shouldn't be going with the wastefulness of cloning, or the scattershot approach of eugenics. We should be using our new knowledge of the human genome to advance our progressive generations.

dodger:
Points a, b are irreleavent. c is a BAD point (as opposed to a good point), d doesnt mean anything andd e applies only now so is irrelavent.
I think you failed to recognise ironic rhetoric. :wink:

Carlos:
Gatica was not a rational movie, the author was a Marxist and was biased in the portrayal of futurists. In fact, I have ample evidence that Hollywood is under Marxist control, or in other words, CEOs who have identical political/cultural beliefs, that of Marxism. No diversity of ideas in Hollywood. Actually, I think a better portrayal of what I personally like is the Falcon species Spok from Star Trek belonged to.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack, to me.

No, Gattaca is in no way marxist. If anything, it is anti-marxist (specifically anti the predestination implication of genetic testing), but is overall pretty even handed. Star Trek, on the other hand is a marxist vision. (no currency ring a bell?) And Spock came from the Vulcans.
 
  • #38
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
Originally posted by dodger
Points a, b are irreleavent. c is a BAD point (as opposed to a good point), d doesnt mean anything andd e applies only now so is irrelavent.

Yes we should play with fire.
You probably failed your ethics class? You probably think the development of the atomic bomb was a good thing for humanity? You probably think Hitler had a good agenda?

And why do you think those points I mentioned were pro-cloning? Cloning reduces genetic variability and thus makes us more prone to diseases and also leads to a higher frequency of inbreeding. How can that be a bad argument against cloning?
 
  • #39
148
0
Originally posted by Monique
You probably think Hitler had a good agenda?
Godwin's Law, dodger wins.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Originally posted by FZ+
That sounds like an ad hominem attack, to me.
You are right, I was guilty of ad hominem. I will try not to do it again. Let me know if I do.

Carlos Hernandez
 

Related Threads on Human Cloning Web Sites

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
17K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
8K
Top