What Are the Ethical Implications of Cloning Humans?

[Leaping antalope]

cloning human--pros and cons

I'm not sure if this is a philosophical problem or not, but it is an ethical problem raised by bio-technology. Cloning technology has caused heated discussion about technology, ethics, religion, economy...etc.
There are both advantages and disadvantages of this technology. Do you guys agree or disagree to clone humans? I would like hear some different points of view...Thanks

 

[Rader]

I'm not sure if this is a philosophical problem or not, but it is an ethical problem raised by bio-technology. Cloning technology has caused heated discussion about technology, ethics, religion, economy...etc.
There are both advantages and disadvantages of this technology. Do you guys agree or disagree to clone humans? I would like hear some different points of view...Thanks

What would we do about Social Security payments? The fingerprints would be the same.

 

[Preator Fenix]

I see no problem in cloning. Full speed ahead.

 

[dekoi]

Once cloning becomes popular, it will create multiple copies of human beings, which will be used for medical/research purposes. This of course, is still the murdering of human beings.

In the future, if cloning is made possible, it will become norm to kill deformed babies (created by means of genes, or by technical problems).

Theism + cloning do not mix. Of course, atheism has no problem with it.


Either way, cloning is most likely destined to become a practised reality.

 

[False Prophet]

Theism + cloning do not mix.

If God didn't want the ability to clone within man's grasp, then why did he make the code so easy to crack?

 

[cyfin]

Cloning would diminish the value of human life. If you get you hand cut off, you could just clone yourself and attach the clone's hand onto yours. Maybe you'll put him/it in a freezer until you need more parts. Medically, there would be no problems doing this, the hand would not be rejected by the body. Human bodies would no longer be as fragile and scarce. Would the clone have any rights? Would life have any real importance? Where could you draw the line on cloned vs not cloned? You are Identical. Would you be justified to take a convicted murderer and kill him, create a clone and raise him so he's not a murderer. The person is still there, just with different experiences.

Humans are pretty much done evolving, why reproduce sexually when you can just clone. Everyone the same. Isnt that ideal? Every copy would come out just as expected. Soon a program of learing would be fine tuned to match that exact person to generate the exact result desired. The person would be trained from birth to fit any role needed in society.

Looking at the immediate results of cloning, security would be at risk. How could you convict a person "beyond a reasonable doubt" when there is a reasonable doubt that his clone might have done it.

Star Wars: Clone Wars is a perfect example. Having the perfectly fit soldier is great. Having that soldier cloned definitely would solve a lot of military problems. Who cares if one or a hundered die? We can make more.

Our uniqueness makes us valuable. Because no one else is like me, I can give you a completey unique perspective on this subject. Just because we have the technology, does not mean we should do it. Whenever you evaluate theses kinds of questions, always take it to both extremes and analize those. What if everyone cloned? Would it be good? What if no one cloned? Would it be bad? Cloning has the posiblility to solve a lot of problems, but in the long run its not worth it. Just a hunch, I think we will run into a lot of problems when cloning is tested. We have made a lot of progress in biology, but we are still no where near understanding it all. Nature still has many tricks up her sleve. I don't think cloning is possible yet. Thats just my opinion though.

If God didn't want the ability to clone within man's grasp, then why did he make the code so easy to crack?

Tell that to the thousands of years of research and countless lives of people dedicated to understanding it.

To quote a great man watching us above our forum who is very much over-quoted: "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." --Albert Einstein

 

[Leong]

Depends on why the cloning is done.

 

[Leaping antalope]

Cloning would diminish the value of human life.

Our uniqueness makes us valuable.

I agree with cyfin's opinion. Although some scientists have claimed that cloning technology can bring many medical advantages, and by cloning great poeple we can gradually improve the standards of human, life would not mean anything if there are many identical persons. We can bring many medical advantages by using other technologies, too. Besides, if everyone is identical, that means that everyone is susceptible to the same disease. All humans can be killed at once easily then, is that really good for improving the standard of human?

 

[Artorius]

Besides, if everyone is identical, that means that everyone is susceptible to the same disease. All humans can be killed at once easily then, is that really good for improving the standard of human?

This could be why sexual reproduction was favored over asexual reproduction (which produces genetically identical offspring, like cloning) for complex organisms in evolutionary history. The mingling of genetic information from two genders produces a hardier organism with a greater chance of survival given changing environmental conditions (based on what I know of evolution theory -- which isn't near as detailed as an evolutionary biologist's). Genetic variation decreases if cloning takes place on a massive scale, leading to a dangerous increase in chances of rapid species termination. Other unseen negative consequences could result, too.

If you get you hand cut off, you could just clone yourself and attach the clone's hand onto yours. Maybe you'll put him/it in a freezer until you need more parts. Medically, there would be no problems doing this, the hand would not be rejected by the body. Human bodies would no longer be as fragile and scarce.

This is a medical possibility, but stem cell technology is probably a more ethical and matter/energy efficient alternative than the production of a full clone for body parts. Even if a full clone were to be produced for organ harvesting, it would be more ethical to remove the brain early in development to prevent a "person" from forming in the clone body. Without the brain, there would be no self-awareness, self-consciousness, thoughts, emotions, etc. The body could still be kept alive via computer systems. I can see a company growing thousands of such bodies, keeping them alive, and selling the new hearts, livers, kidneys, etc., to those that need them.

This leads to a question though: Would growing clones devalue humans if the clones had no identity, even though the clones improve the quality of life for humans?

 

[balkan]

What would we do about Social Security payments? The fingerprints would be the same.

nope, they wouldn't...

and humans are not pretty much done evolving ... that's such a typical religious argument... (and by that i mean, it's used a lot by religious people)
if we were, we wouldn't have wisdom teeth or appendix's and we definitely wouldn't have all sorts of defects that we can't get rid of through reproduction.
the only reason humans have stopped evolving, is because we have effectively stopped our own evolution by "allowing" people with serious defects to have children...
i'm not saying that is wrong, but it does accumulate and deteriorate the gene pool.. at some point we will have to choose between genetic manipulation or "breeding" - like the bene gesserit does in frank herberts dune - or we will face some serious problems...
these things do not fix themselves, and they do not magically dissapear.

and if you cloned a mass murderor and brought him up in a different way, it would not be the same person... that person would have absolutely no idea of what the other had done, so that's a ridiculous argument...
not ridiculous though, is the notion about breeding humans for "spare parts"... that's a frigthening thought... on the other hand, cloning an individual spare part from the subjects own stem cells should also become possible, and then suddently we are just talking about an extreme case of tissue "healing"... otherwise you are going to have to ban people from healing themselves as well... disallow their cells to work together to rebuild a part of your body... which happens billions of times inside your body...

 

[Rader]

nope, they wouldn't...

Actually that was a joke, I agree with you. How did you come up with all this from a joke? Well I guess you thought I was serious.
The fingerprints would be different, becasue each clone would be born in a specific moment and place in space-time. It probably will not be long before this can be proven. Whats your reason?

and humans are not pretty much done evolving ... that's such a typical religious argument... (and by that i mean, it's used a lot by religious people)
if we were, we wouldn't have wisdom teeth or appendix's and we definitely wouldn't have all sorts of defects that we can't get rid of through reproduction.
the only reason humans have stopped evolving, is because we have effectively stopped our own evolution by "allowing" people with serious defects to have children...
i'm not saying that is wrong, but it does accumulate and deteriorate the gene pool.. at some point we will have to choose between genetic manipulation or "breeding" - like the bene gesserit does in frank herberts dune - or we will face some serious problems...
these things do not fix themselves, and they do not magically dissapear.

and if you cloned a mass murderor and brought him up in a different way, it would not be the same person... that person would have absolutely no idea of what the other had done, so that's a ridiculous argument...
not ridiculous though, is the notion about breeding humans for "spare parts"... that's a frigthening thought... on the other hand, cloning an individual spare part from the subjects own stem cells should also become possible, and then suddently we are just talking about an extreme case of tissue "healing"... otherwise you are going to have to ban people from healing themselves as well... disallow their cells to work together to rebuild a part of your body... which happens billions of times inside your body

 

[dekoi]

If God didn't want the ability to clone within man's grasp, then why did he make the code so easy to crack?

Perhaps because God has given us free will? He did not restrict us from "cracking this code" because he gave us the ability to choose.

 

[False Prophet]

Good point, dekoi, that makes sense.

Incidentally, I wanted to challenge three declarations made about cloning.

1) How would making brainless clones to harvest organs devalue other humans? Sure that clone wouldn't necesarily have a special value, but does the cow heart they use for a transplant have value? If I have a Mercedes-Benz CL 600 parked outside my house, but I go and buy an '89 Dodge Aries for spare parts, does that make the Benz suddenly drop in value?

2) How does it threaten anyone's identity? The donor already knows what he's giving up his DNA for. If he wants to feel like less of a man or unoriginal for it then that's his choice. So unless you're really worried about some random thug sneaking up behind you and pulling a hair and running to the lab to have you cloned for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think you'll be alright.

3) How does it lead to less diversification? If we make some clones out of existing DNA, we're only making more people. The existing 6,395,099,000+ people would suddenly die as soon as we start cloning people? Please explain how this disease is supposed to work. Something tells me that when we start cloning people for therapuetic purposes, a lot of people will still reproduce the conventional way, as it would be more economical, and still give people genuine kids of their own. Therefore, evolution would continue, God wouldn't necessarily be upset, etc.

Here's a hilarious website, although I don't think it's a reliable source:

http://www.clonaid.com/news.php

Also you have to see the movie "The Sixth Day" if you haven't. It is awesome and really intriguing.

 

[balkan]

Actually that was a joke, I agree with you. How did you come up with all this from a joke? Well I guess you thought I was serious.
The fingerprints would be different, becasue each clone would be born in a specific moment and place in space-time. It probably will not be long before this can be proven. Whats your reason?

the reason is the same that identical twin don't have the same fingerprints or same rectinals or have hair sacks grow in exactly the same places:
biology is heavily subject to its environment and to quantum uncertainty just like every thing else is.
there could be a delay in one protein being available and that would interfere with the pattern. i could keep on listing stuff that would matter...
from baby state, fingerprints still change btw, and is still subject to environmental effects... is the baby fat, is it not. it all matters.

now why did you skip over the rest of my entire post? that had nothing to do with your joke...

 

[balkan]

no matter... let's just isolate it like this:

humans are not pretty much done evolving ... that's such a typical religious argument... (and by that i mean, it's used a lot by religious people)
if we were, we wouldn't have wisdom teeth or appendix's and we definitely wouldn't have all sorts of defects that we can't get rid of through reproduction.
the only reason humans have stopped evolving, is because we have effectively stopped our own evolution by "allowing" people with serious defects to have children...
i'm not saying that is wrong, but it does accumulate and deteriorate the gene pool.. at some point we will have to choose between genetic manipulation or "breeding" - like the bene gesserit does in frank herberts dune - or we will face some serious problems...
these things do not fix themselves, and they do not magically dissapear.

and if you cloned a mass murderor and brought him up in a different way, it would not be the same person... that person would have absolutely no idea of what the other had done, so that's a ridiculous argument...
not ridiculous though, is the notion about breeding humans for "spare parts"... that's a frigthening thought... on the other hand, cloning an individual spare part from the subjects own stem cells should also become possible, and then suddently we are just talking about an extreme case of tissue "healing"... otherwise you are going to have to ban people from healing themselves as well... disallow their cells to work together to rebuild a part of your body... which happens billions of times everyday

 

[Rader]

the reason is the same that identical twin don't have the same fingerprints or same rectinals or have hair sacks grow in exactly the same places:
biology is heavily subject to its environment and to quantum uncertainty just like every thing else is.
there could be a delay in one protein being available and that would interfere with the pattern. i could keep on listing stuff that would matter...
from baby state, fingerprints still change btw, and is still subject to environmental effects... is the baby fat, is it not. it all matters.

So then a clone is not really a exact copy biologically. The environment plus what it learns would change also how it thinks and reacts. It would be something like in looks, but something quite different in how it acts and reacts. Would you say that maybe it would have similar needs that is physiological y psychological?

now why did you skip over the rest of my entire post? that had nothing to do with your joke...

It gave me a big headacke to thing about the mind boggling new set of values that would be argued over. Its exhausting thinking about it. It is optomistic the way you put it though. A clone would be a human bieing, so its a relief you could clone Hitler, but his clone could never be him. Your comments have helped to clear up some worries in my head.

 

[Philocrat]

I'm not sure if this is a philosophical problem or not, but it is an ethical problem raised by bio-technology. Cloning technology has caused heated discussion about technology, ethics, religion, economy...etc.
There are both advantages and disadvantages of this technology. Do you guys agree or disagree to clone humans? I would like hear some different points of view...Thanks

The issue you are raising is not necessarily an issue for philosophers alone. It is fundamentally an issue that concerns every member of the world societies. Philosophy may only intervene at point of difficulties to clarify things at the level of Natural Laws that bind us together and to everything else in the universe. Before we dive deep into this question any further, I think you should tune into BBC 1 TV at 9.00 O'clock tonight (Thursday 21st 2004, the UK time), and watch a documentry called 'Blood Brother'. I do not want to tell you the content of the TV programme. See it for yourself and then tell us how and what you feel afterwards.

 

[Leaping antalope]

But...

Before we dive deep into this question any further, I think you should tune into BBC 1 TV at 9.00 O'clock tonight (Thursday 21st 2004, the UK time), and watch a documentry called 'Blood Brother'. I do not want to tell you the content of the TV programme. See it for yourself and then tell us how and what you feel afterwards.

But I am unable to watch that documentry because I am currently studying in an international school in China, where there is no BBC 1 TV...

 

[Leaping antalope]

The issue you are raising is not necessarily an issue for philosophers alone. It is fundamentally an issue that concerns every member of the world societies. Philosophy may only intervene at point of difficulties to clarify things at the level of Natural Laws that bind us together and to everything else in the universe.

I think this issue is an international issue which concerns ethics, religion, morality, politics, philosophy, science, anthropology, technology...etc. It is really a controvertial issue that has become a heated topic in the world.

 

[balkan]

So then a clone is not really a exact copy biologically. The environment plus what it learns would change also how it thinks and reacts. It would be something like in looks, but something quite different in how it acts and reacts. Would you say that maybe it would have similar needs that is physiological y psychological?

It gave me a big headacke to thing about the mind boggling new set of values that would be argued over. Its exhausting thinking about it. It is optomistic the way you put it though. A clone would be a human bieing, so its a relief you could clone Hitler, but his clone could never be him. Your comments have helped to clear up some worries in my head.

okay, well... ...
anyway
genetically, there would be some traits that would carry over. physiological things and some chemical things in the brain... e.g. the timing of the hormonal development would probably be the same, so just like a son have some traits from his father, the clone would have some traits from the original...
but keep in mind, that most genes that could be of concern here (anger problems, skizophrenia, add, whatever), are generally genes that are "activated" for some reason either when the baby is very young or later in life for some other genes... activation is often due to trauma, malnutrition and stuff like that...

but generally, no, nothing to worry about unless the subject is genetically prone to violence and skizophrenia... then you should consider not cloning ;)