With the recent birth of five cloned piglets, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the moral aspects of cloning (I apologise if this has been done in depth previously).
With technology that, until recently, was reserved for science fiction, it is understandable that concerns are raised over suggestions of an army of cloned Hitlers. However, there are more immediate issues to consider. Will clones be outcasts or have unfair expectations forced on them? Should humans have control over reproduction (or re-reproduction )in this way? Is it right to select a child’s sex, features or intelligence? The list continues.
Is it good to have five little pigs; even if they all build their houses from bricks?
Well, ignoring the possibility of genetic memory, an army of Hitlers would be nothing more than a bunch of short, white, similar looking men. Hitler’s upbringing and background of poverty, racial tension, and political climate molded who he became. It’s a safe bet that a majority of the Hitlers would be brilliant in various fields.
Perhaps that could be some sick form of contrition: keep reincarnating the evil and force them to serve mankind. Clone Hitler and make him pick up garbage in a Polish neighborhood, help build new synagogues, lobby capital hill for homosexuals, and work on a cure for some deadly disease.
I’ll admit that a Hitlerclone raised by nazis could be politically devastating, but more than one would be silly.
Clones as organ farms is an issue we will have to address VERY soon. What is the morality of raising brain-dead humans to harvest organs for “real” human beings in need?
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
It’s important when discussing cloning to distinguish between the newer forms of cloning, which clone new animals from ordinary adult animal cells, and the earlier forms of cloning, which are little more than the “forced twinning” of a fertilized ovum.
Of course, even with the earlier “forced twinning” form of cloning, you could always freeze a zygote and then cause it to pop off a new zygote clone whenever you wanted to – thus allowing you to raise a generation of clones, figure out which ones came out the “best”, and then create a new generation solely from those prize-specimens’ frozen eggs. But this isn’t the same as picking ANY successful, well-built adult (whose zygote was not preserved) and cloning a new genetic copy of this person from his/her adult cells.
It’s also important to remember that no two clones will be any more alike than identical twins are.
I know nothing whatsoever about medicine. But the newspaper article I read yesterday about this event stated that pigs were physiologically the closest animal to humans. So, if we can use pig clones to help us get deperately needed organs for transplant, I say go for it.
What offends me is PETA being upset about this whole thing. Their anger is totally misdirected. Organ transplants are a good and necessary thing. Bacon isn’t.
This space blank, until Wally thinks up something cool to put here.
HAAAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHA I loved that!
Anyway,
I do and I don’t support Genetic engineering/cloning. Genetic engineering can be and IS a giant boon to mankind. We use it in all sorts of ways. We can make medicine, better plants, better cows, better just about everything. But what would happen if we allowed humans to be genetically engineered? Surely only the rich would be able to afford such a procedure. A flood of rich genetically enhanced kids will be out there. When they grow up they WILL be the captains of industry, the authorities of science and the leaders of the world. What will happen to the poor people? The rich will get richer and more powerful while the poor will stay poor. Do you want to live in a plutocrcy?
Cloning on the otherhand is the same deal since it will be readily and easily combined with genetic engineering. It will also reduce the amount of genetic material in the gene pool.
[Moderator Note: Edited to put in line breaks in Bored’s excessively long line. Don’t put in long non-breaking lines, Bored; it stretches the page out and causes sidescroll. Thanks.]
[Note: This message has been edited by Gaudere]
I disagree. Whilst it is true that his experiences would have had a huge, and probably the biggest, influence on his behaviour, I do not believe that just any person would have such a capacity for evil. Yes, experience does affect who we are, but it only unleashes the potential - for good or evil. There are some inborn character traits which experiences alone cannot provide.
What aboutthe problem (noticed with “Dolly”-the first cloned sheep) of DNA degredation? I understand that “DOLLY2” is showing signs of old age, even though she is relatively young. Won’t we be putting superannuated hearts and lungs into people-in effect putting worn-out parts into the system?
First, on the Hitler cloning thing. It has been proven that environment, as well as genetics, contribute to the way a person turns out. Hitler, were he cloned today, would almost certainly not be any more evil than any normal person. He had a great capacity for evil, and combined with the environment in which he lived…we all know what happened. Whether or not a Hitler clone would have the same capacity for evil is unknown. Even if he did, it is unlikely that it would be triggered.
I have no moral objection to cloning people, however, it probably is not a good idea. What are the rights of cloned people. One could not expect a clone to willingly submit to the person who made it as its almighty master. If we are to clone people, the cloners must accept the clonees as real human beings with full rights and a will of their own.
Here’s another thought on the cloning process. In trying to clone an entire human, there will undoubtedly be mistakes. At what point would these “mistakes” become humans. How disfigured and brain dead does a clone have to be considered “disposable”
If a person is cloned, will the clone develop any or all of the same physical problems as it’s original? Or would they simply not clone people with physical problems?
Take me, for example. I have epilepsy. I didn’t have my first grand mal seizure until I was sixteen years old, and it was not due to head trauma. My neurologist believes it’s one of the more severe symptoms of PMS (all the other women in my family just get migraines–I took it one step further). Anyway, if I were cloned, would my clone develop epilepsy?
This space blank, until Wally thinks up something cool to put here.
We don’t do a thing when we clone people. All we do is take a primitive cell, take out the genetic material then replace it with the genetic material of another person. The process then occurs naturally. We don’t do a thing.
David, Yeah! The only genetic material on Earth which is more brain-dead than polititians are those who are appointed to some official capacity to serve others without any pay whatsoever, except, like, a coffe mug or something.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
I am well aware of the cloning process, however, do you think that every cloned person would turn out perfect. Dolly, the sheep, is showing signs of premature aging. What’s to say that something like this, or possibly more serious would not happen when cloning a person
What I meant by capacity for evil is that some people are genetically predisposed to have a greater possibility of becoming “evil.” I am well aware of the fact that environment plays a large part in how a person turns out. But it is unlikely that another person born into Hitler’s exact same position would have become a terroristic dictator
Sake Samurai,
Ted pretty much sums up the way I feel about this. I find it difficult to accept that just any person could turn out as Hitler did, simply because of background and upbringing alone.
Watson, one of the early founders of learning theory, once said (and I paraphrase heavily), “Give me five newborns, and I’ll turn them into any profession you want – doctor, criminal, anything.”
In the debate of nature vs. nurture, nurture has a slight edge. If someone cloned Hitler, learning theory and behavior modification could be used to mold him into a mighty dictator worthy of the assassins bullet. However, his body must be capable of that. If someone in the lab pokes the zygote with a spoon and ruins a large part of the developing brain, well, then, poo on the Neo Nazis and their cloned Hitler.
Wasn’t he doing that? Or more precisely didn’t he believe, by eugenics and mass extermination of “undesirables,” that he was doing that?
As someone concerned with animal exploitation issues, I’m deeply concerned over the notion of cloning animals as a source of replacement parts for human beings, which was a highlight of the report on the piglets I saw. What I would like to see is research directed toward cloning specific organs indepebdently of a supporting body, whether human or non-human. Grab a genetic sample and activate the genes for growing a heart or kidneys or whichever organ is needed. But, since we treat all animals as resources, I don’t see that happening.
)in this way? Is it right to select a child’s sex, features or intelligence? The list continues.