It would even be OK if she was raised by some other couple as long as they were good folks.
I think she was the kind of person that would make a huge difference here on earth. We named her Shannon knowing it meant “small but wise” not knowing just how true it was. An understatement if there ever was one.
She was so much older than her years, we need more like her. Only a little girl and she knew so much, she even asked the mystery questions, ones that come later to most.
Would you?
Anwar Sadat?
Einstein?
and when Jimmy Carter goes? (I hope he has a long time to go!)
A clone is, practically speaking, only a cosmetic copy of the original. Cloned Anwar Sadat may be a Islamist fanatic. Cloned Einstein may choose to start a lawn-care service, bugger the physics! Cloned Carter may be a good president.
You don’t know that they will turn out the same, so why bother?
Still. I think a clone would be more like the twins who never met yet were so much alike. That is what I wonder. She wanted to be a marine biologist in pre-school. Then she saw the fish department in WalMart. Then she attended William and Mary University while in third grade.
She swam with dolfins and taught me how to listen to them.
Moderator’s Note: So, tunabreath, are you more interested in a discussion of what “cloning” would really mean in terms of who we are, or do you just want people to say who they’d “clone” if they had the chance (with the assumption that “clone” means “make a copy of the person”)?
I’d clone my dad in a heartbeat, 'cause even though there’s no way I could bring him up to be the same person, the basic material would yield one heck of a good person.
Is this responsible, though? Don’t we need diversity? Is it selfish or vain to clone like this, the way selecting the sex of your baby is thought to be by some folks? Do I give a damn when it comes to someone dear to me?
Why bother? Unless you can re-create the same kind of character in the clone, there’s no difference between a copy and a different person. No fundamental difference anyway, except in DNA.
(Not to sound heartless, but I suspect that tunabreath is in more of a mood to talk about “her” then about cloning in a GD context. Could be wrong though.)
Anyway, I dont know that a clone would be anything like the original person, so much of who we are being based on the way we’re raised. A clone of a person would probably be somewhat like a younger brother/sister to that person, some similiarities due to same parentage and similiar appearance, but not an exact copy because of being raised in different circumstances.
So if you were going to clone somebody, you’d probably want to do it because you wanted to have a person who was physically identical to the original, because you’d know their knowledge, experiences, attitudes, etc., would be quite different. If some people are genetically smarter than others, than perhaps cloning a famous thinker would be constructive. Or cloning an example of human physical beauty would be pretty constructive, you know what you’re getting.
Cloning a lost loved one would be like trying to replace that person, which it wouldn’t accomplish anyways, and I personally would find it a little obsessive and creepy. But that’s just me.
Actually, MEBukner, it’s a bit of both. A part of me is very uncomfortable with the idea. We have enough people to squash the earth already. Cloning on a large scale would pretty much end diversity. It would make “family” mean much less I think.
On the other hand there are some types of people we just don’t have enough of. Thinkers, humanitarians.
Then there’s the morality issue.
Yes I know she would not be my daughter. I just knew that she was going to be one of those people. As I said, she could even be raised by others, I wouldn’t have to see her.
I looked but couldn’t find a cite. I’m sure I read/heard that cloning cannot reliably even produce a look-alike, much less a twin. It would be a different person in every sense of the word, except for DNA.
I wish I could find that article because it explained much more clearly than I can, why cloning does not produce a twin or even look-alike. Something about in-utero conditions, hormonal and chemical variables, etc. Not to say that they’re positive that this is why, but that it could be part of what makes us unique individuals. Sorry to be so vague, I will have another look for more info later.
Given that we can be fairly certain that the cloned individual is not going to BE the same person, and cannot be reliably expected to even LOOK like the person…then perhaps it’s best to let the person go. If one is then left with cloning as a way to achieve a certain DNA mix, then one may as well simply reproduce the old-fashioned way, no?
That said, you have my sincere, hearfelt sympathies for the loss of your daughter, tunabreath. As a mother, I don’t even want to try to imagine your suffering. So very sorry.
Unfortunately tunabreath you seem to keep missing this point as Triss and others keep pointing out.
A clone would in effect be a twin to your daughter and that’s it. I have known a fair number of twins and I can say without fear of contradiction that the twins were very unique and separate individuals. Mostly they just looked alike (and even then not always very closely) and that’s where it ended. Some twins I knew were very similar to one another while others were quite different…much as any two siblings anywhere, twin or not. Occasionally the differences were night and day between the twins (smart/dumb, nice/mean, hard working/lazy, etc.).
Bottom line is you only guarantee a look alike and even then there may be marked differences. As Triss mentioned, given all of the above, you are just as well off making another child in the usual, ‘old fashioned’ way. It’s also far simpler not to mention cheaper, more reliable and more fun.
That you would want your daughter back is perfectly understandable. She sounds remarkable and without even knowing her, given your description, I am sad the world has lost her.
While I sympathize with your grief, I think it is misdirected. You cannot bring back that little girl. And would you be able to let the clone be her own person-- i.e., not try to make her into the original?
Triss: A human clone WOULD be pretty much an identical twin. I think you are thinking about the cloned cat who had different spots than the original, but the spot patterns on cats are not only genetic. Humans don’t have that sort of thing going on. Of course, it’s possible that the clone could be physically smaller or larger depending on it’s fetal development (born pre-mature, etc), but that’s it.
Brutus: Good one about Carter! I had to laugh as I agree wholeheartedly.
Are you sure? I know it’s hard to find cites for this type of thing because there’s really only animal research to go on. Is the above your opinion or…? I’m pretty sure the article I read did mention the cat, but went on to speculate about human cloning, as they usually do. What sort of thing don’t humans have going on? (Other than spots, of course.) What’s different about how the genetic code for say, orange fur, is expressed, and how say, the code for blonde hair is expressed? I’m honestly curious.
If I were a genetic scientist at this point in time, I wouldn’t be assuring grieving parents that they’re going to have a twin of their deceased child. Not without lots of accepted precendent. As Whack-a-Mole pointed out, identical twins are not always identical, and they are presumably, subjected to the exact same in-utero environment.
[sup]May we all go to a better place, such as IMHO[/sup][/ul]