Never mind that therapeutic cloning (where organs or tissues are grown instead of whole people) is far more likely to fill this need. I’m not saying that some nutjob wouldn’t have a clone just so he could harvest it’s organs, just that there is no compelling reason for it to ever catch on.
I have to agree that the spookiest part for me is the concept of cloning a nearly anencephalic version of one’s self as a spare-parts bin. There may yet be an advantage to that over therapeutic cloning because of its… “on demand” advantages. Yuck.
However, there may be other interesting ramifications. Is a clone of one’s self automatically one’s next of kin?
I can imagine a hilarious scenario where a terminally-ill patriarch of a nasty family like the Hafts has himself cloned in order to ensure that nobody else in the family will be successor-in-interest to his estate. A clone might yet prove to be the one way to take it with you–sort of.
Such a practice might lead to a concentration and polarization of wealth that could make the Reagan era look like an office Secret Santa pool.
Per the OP, and notwithstanding the unavoidable ethical arguments – has the world changed forever? IMHO, yes.
Once upon a time, single cell life forms reproduced themselves by duplicating (ie cloning) their own genetic material (think about that for a second). Then, out of nowhere – zygotes appear and the male/female duality begins (alongwith the toilet seat up/down argument – but I digress).
Now, human cloning appears as an artificial way to turn back the Darwinian clock, taking natural selection out of the picture (assuming that scientists eventually figure out how to fix the genetic defects that occur in clones).
This is change of the highest order.
While we will hopefully never live in Huxley’s world of canneries and dehumanizing pre-destination, the advent of human cloning does have the potential to alter the existing social order.
How we intergrate these changes into our existing social order remains to be seen.
“*Oh brave new world that has such people in it… *”
Shakespeare, The Tempest
Aside - various websites describe 20 to 50,000 Raelians worldwide.
Exactly what of their beliefs strike you as particularly “wacky” and why? Why any more so than any other non demonstrable belief systems?
People have already created babies as transplant donors, and they didn’t need cloning.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-96/06-05-96/a02wn014.htm
http://www.cancer.umn.edu/page/research/trsplant/cord6.html
Well this baby is no twin.
Shades of Frankenstien (the movie) ITS ALIVE!! ALIIIVE!
This procedure is not a split of genteic material. Its using the donor material exclusively. There is no slight chance of deviation as in a natural twin. This is an exact copy. Since the genes came from the mother, technically, she gave birth to herself.
As far as the OP. Yes the world has changed forever. whoopee. It changed with 9-11, enron, worldcom, fall of the ussr… so we have a clone… BFD.
That christian coalition calling the baby an abberation and calling for the sanctity of life is impetus for the urgent need of a world wide change.
The OP asks “has our world now officially changed forever?” Not much - it’s just another way of making a baby and people will get a whole lot less excited about it as and when it becomes more common.
Just because a baby is created as a result of cloning doesn’t lead to the undesirable “uses” for those babies postulated by some. For example, if a group wanted to create a super race in their own image, they don’t have to clone - they can just have sex amongst themselves.
Splitting hairs, maybe, but according to the radio this morning, cloning is not illegal in the US. However, it does require FDA approval, and they have stated they are not going to give it.
**
Perhaps this might have something do to with it…
From the CNN source
**
I’m not saying that calling yourself the “son of God” or claiming that the angel Gabriel came to you isn’t just as “wacky.” It’s just a little more obvious in this case.
Another splitting hair thing (not as much as the other one) but I heard in the news that prostitution is legal in Nevada. It isn’t legal here, but it isn’t illegal to talk about it or announce that it happens.
Ah, headless clone ranching is nothing to worry about, since it will never happen. Exactly how many people are willing to pay the costs of lifetime intensive care for a child without a head on the off chance that they will one day need an organ that the child can provide? No doctor is going to perform the procedure of deliberately creating an anencephalic baby, they would lose their medical license.
The only people who could concievably carry this procedure out would be the odd psychopathic dictator. And while is is creepy to imagine Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il creating a baby in order to harvest it’s organs, it is no more creepy than their current practice of mass murdering political opponents along with their families, creating mass starvation in their countries, threatening nuclear war, etc.
As far as rich people having themselves cloned so that they can leave all their possesions to the clone. Um, can’t they already leave their possesions to their children? In what way would the clone be different than a child? If an evil partriarch wants to leave everything to only one person, they can already do that. The person doesn’t have to be related to them. Cloning isn’t going to change inheritance. Once it becomes obvious to these people that the clone that they are leaving everything to is just another baby, that may be their relative but doesn’t neccesarily have anything else in common with them, their interest will fade.
Bill Gates could hire thousands of women and impregnate them with his sperm and create an army of his own children today, with absolutely no new reproductive technology. Why doesn’t he, and why don’t other rich people do this? Because it makes no sense. Leaving your money to your clone is just like leaving your money to your child. Nothing more, nothing less.
Cloning changes nothing. Cloning creates no new ethical issues. All it requires is that we apply our current ethical standards with the teeniest modicum of common sense. We have been dealing with naturally occuring clones since the dawn of recorded history. I have clones in my family. It is no big deal. We’ll get over it.
Although it seems to me that the likelyhood is that this story is false, and the Raelians are simply faking. After all, it took hundreds of eggs and hundreds of attempts to create Dolly the sheep, and the other cloned animals. And the procedure is not safe for humans yet. I’d give 10-1 odds that the story is a scam.
I just don’t see what the big deal is. I’d say the chances of these Raelians actually having cloned a person is slim, but assuming that they did actually do it successfully, good for them. Way to go.
Human cloning should not be all that big of a deal so long as we follow the basic tenets …
*** … that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ***
BFD.
It’s another way to make a baby. Another very expensive way to make a baby.
I do see ethical issues regarding the practice of cloning, but those have very little to do with the fact that the baby has genetic material from only one parent.
A Star of David… with a Swastika inside.
NOOOOO! Not they’re not trying to stir people up at all! G
Re: acephalic clones – as of this point, U.S. law currently does not require a brain to define you as “human”.
In particular, I’m thinking of an infant in the news who was born with a tumor on his brain stem, right? The child had a head, true, but no BRAIN to speak of… the skull was literally filled with fluid. The child had SOME motor function, but wasn’t much beyond simple autonomics.
Law at no point denied this child its humanity.
Seems to me that if you want to grow a headless clone in a glass tube on the off chance you’re ever going to need a fresh kidney or a new liver, you’re going to have to specifically MAKE some laws allowing you to do so!
That was their symbol originally; they’ve modified it since to include more “twists” so the swastika is removed.
We already have a way to get around the successor-in-interest issue, and other related issues whereby probate can override a Will. It’s called a Living Trust.
Perhaps one use of cloning will be to enable some form of immortality. I don’t know that this could ever work, but perhaps one day brain transplants would be successful. In that case, I could clone myself when I’m 20. Then when I’m 40 and the clone is 20, I could transplant my brain to the 20 year old clone. I would create another clone and repeat the whole thing 20 years later. This would, theoretically, allow me to live forever. There’s many moral issues to deal with, but I don’t know that someone like Hitler would feel bad about taking the brain out of a 20 year old clone and putting his own in.
You’re assuming that the brain, unlike other organs, never deteriorates. Is this so?