Hundreds of thousands? More like 50,000 - 60,000. Certainly not before emergence of language.
First point is that nobody has any idea when our ancestors first developed language. There is debatable evidnce based on one datum point that H. erectus couldn’t speak, at least not like modern humans, but that;s all we can say on the matter. I have never before heard anyone suggest that any member of Homo sapiens, a species that has existed for over 120, 000 years, could not speak.
Similarly there is no reason to believe that complex societies haven’t also existed since the beginnings of our species and before. Whatever makes you think that people of 120, 000 years gao had less complex societies than people of today? Humans as a species are deifnied in largepart by complex social structures, it’s hard to imagine how this could not have been the case for some members of the sopecies.
I think people are afraid that if we had human cloning there would be more than one of me on the planet at a time, and even I think one of me is plenty.
The Island :rolleyes:
It’s interesting to think about the effects on biometric identification and DNA evidence. Right now, identical twins are pretty rare. However, if cloning becomes viable, then we may have a very difficult time legally identifying people.
In particular, if it ever becomes possible to produce a clone from a small tissue sample, then we could theoretically be faced with:
[ul]
[li]Theft of DNA (hair, etc.) from smart/athletic folks to create wonder children[/li][li]The end of reliable paternity tests[/li][li]The end of reliable DNA evidence[/li][/ul]
Of course, it would also make for whole new subgenres of science fiction. Imagine “Changeling”, where a nurse takes a tissue sample from the newborn baby of a billionaire, gets a clone implanted, raises the clonechild, arranges for the real kid to have an accident at age 9 that causes head trauma, and then switches them back. Years later, at age 18, the changeling cuts her a check for 10 million.
Star Trek: Nemesis.
Hmm, no “blech!” smiley…
But we just can’t get enough of you… 
I personally don’t have a problem with human cloning, for organs or for reproduction. However, there might be an issue with the ownership of DNA. Can you sue someone if they clone you without your permission?
awwwww 
there’s plenty of me to go around… at least, that’s what she says…
People are afraid of cloning,because it is something new. There was a big scare to a lot of people when the first child was concieved in the laboratory dish,now that is rather common practice. Identical twins are natures clone, and they are still individuals,they may share a lot of the same DNA but some even do not look alike in adulthood.They experiance life in a whole different way. I have read(if it is true or not I couldn’t say), but the life span of some of the animal cloned were shorter than a non clone.There was a lot of people who worried that a child would not have a soul,because God didn’t create it. I guess some times we humans like to have something to worry about. They also worried about the first heart transplant when it accured in Australia.
Monavis
People are afraid of cloning,because it is something new. There was a big scare to a lot of people when the first child was concieved in the laboratory dish,now that is rather common practice. Identical twins are natures clone, and they are still individuals,they may share a lot of the same DNA but some even do not look alike in adulthood.They experiance life in a whole different way. I have read(if it is true or not I couldn’t say), but the life span of some of the animal cloned were shorter than a non clone.There was a lot of people who worried that a child would not have a soul,because God didn’t create it. I guess some times we humans like to have something to worry about. They also worried about the first heart transplant when it accured in Australia.
Monavis
Sorry it Occured,not accured.
Monavis
I’ve been wondering about this for awhile. Right now it is not illegal to clone a human in the US-- anit-cloning bills were passed several times in the House, but failed to pass in the Senate. I don’t know if there is any law about owning one’s own DNA, but I’d be very curious to find out.
Imagine that some busboy at a trendy Hollywood restuarant starts to collect hair from celebrities. Since we all shed hair constantly, this shouldn’t be too much trouble-- just make sure a follicle is intact. Then he auctions them off on ebay, where they are then used by the buyers for cloning purposes. Your next baby could be Julia Roberts or Colin Farrell!
It’s all totally academic at present of course. As it stands we need living cells to produce clones. Anything collected from a person against there will, including hair, skin scrapings and so forth are long since dead. There might be some live cells in saliva, though the technology doesn’t currently exist to isolate them.
So have at it if you are just interested in an intellectual discussion of hypotheticals, but be aware thatit’s akin to debating whether it would be illegal to teleport into a celebrity’s house. Since we have neither teleporter’s nor cloning techniques of this kind celebritries shouldn’t be losing any sleep over these issues.
You could say exactly the same thing about having a kid the traditional way. Why don’t we outlaw that, while we at it, until we’ve cleared out the backlog of unadopted kids? Personally, I’d rather adopt than have kids of my own, but there’s simply no way to deny that for most people, there is a very strong biological imperitive to have your own kids. One could reasonably argue that producing your own biological offspring is the entire purpose of life on Earth.
Wait, cloning makes you a racist now? Where the hell did that come from? That’s a pretty ballsy accusation, coming from an eugenecist.
So what? How many people, out of the entire human gene pool, would this ever apply to? Most people are going to continue to have kids the old fashioned way, because its cheaper, easier, and a lot more fun. A vanishingly small percentage are going to find themselves in a position where that’s not an option for whatever reason, and cloning gives them another option. Why should this be anything other than an occasion to celebrate? Who cares if that kid has to clone his own children? How many generations in is it going to be before we find a cure for that original genetic defect, and your fears of evolutionary sterilization are rendered even more irrelevent?
As noted by another poster, how does this not apply to people with genetic defects having children the old fashioned way?
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m having a heck of a time imagining a small child who looks identical to their adult parent. The differences in height, at the very least, would be pretty hard to overcome, y’know? By the time the parent and the kid get to the point where they’d actually start resembling each other significantly, the kid should have a sufficiently developed sense of self that this wouldn’t be an issue.
And, again, it’s not at all unusual for kids conceived in the regular manner to strongly resemble on parent or the other. Do you contend that these kids are also suffering significant mental damage?
I tend to agree, but as it stands, there’s really no way to know. At the very least, cloning might answer this question definitively.
How does this not apply to the kids Einstein actually had? The non-cloned ones, I mean? Should we forbid the famous from having kids? If not, why should we forbid the famouse from being cloned?
Again, an issue that is very far from being unique to clones. How many naturally conceived children are pressured by their parents into career paths that they are not interested in pursuing? For a parent who is predisposed to treat their kid this way, why should being their clone make it worse for them than for their “regular” kids? And if there is any genetic component to this sort of thing (which, admittedly, I highly doubt), wouldn’t it be better for these efforts to be projected onto a kid that shares the same genetic predilections, than on a kid that might have picked up a different genetic imperative from their other parent?
Or, we could do both. Life is not always an either/or proposition.
:dubious: And what’s wrong with “tampering with nature”? We’ve been doing that ever since our ancestors figured out they could collect seeds from wild-growing plants and grow them on farms, and domesticate wild animals for human needs – and selectively breed both plants and animals for desired characteristics.
Read Aldous Huxley’s *Brave New World * and try to figure it out from there.
What does Brave New World have to do with anything?
Clones are human babies. If we decide to enslave human babies, genetically engineer them for a particular role in society, then condition them mercilessly to mindlessly accept that role, then distract them from their slavery with creature comforts and amusements, then we make that decision. What does cloning have to do with dictatorship, even a “soft” dictatorship like Huxley imagined?
Cloning simply creates an identical twin. Why that twin is more likely to be enslaved, abused, or owned by a corporation than a baby that doesn’t share the genes of another person I simply can’t understand. Sure, the future may hold the enslavement of a large fraction of humanity by a cruel and merciless dictatorship, but if so that will be because we decide to enslave each other. Cloning doesn’t make a future where we throw away the Constitution and abolish human rights any more likely, and I honestly can’t understand why anyone would think it would.
BNW doesn’t involve cloning, simply because when the book was written (1932), the modern concept of cloning didn’t exist. DNA itself wouldn’t be discovered until 1953. BNW involves stimulating zygotes (destined to be Gammas, Deltas or Epsilons) to rapidly twin, and the attendant social engineering and endless planning to ensure that all resultant children would have employment, i.e. one scene where eight identical Deltas serve as stewards aboard the Bombay Green Rocket look out eight portholes. The rocket was clearly designed with this group in mind and the group was conditioned and educated from birth (in fact from conception) for this job.
There’s no indication whatsoever of any attempt to bring back through genetic engineering someone long dead. The dead are rather casually dismissed in BNW, their bodies burned for whatever valuable chemicals might be salvaged.
Before I go further, did you actually read the book or did you just want to get some kneejerk response?
Just about every statement in this thread so far has been of the sort ‘I think…’ or ‘What if…’ Our entire opinion of cloning is just that: opinion. We base few of our expectations - good or bad - on hard scientific fact, because there simply isn’t enough established scientific fact in this area. And that is not a reason to halt all scientific investigation into the subject. Just because you might not like the answers, isn’t a reason to not ask a question. That’s the nature of scientific discovery - sometimes the answers aren’t what you were hoping for, and sometimes they’re more amazing that you could ever have imagined. But to find out, you have to keep asking the questions.
The first heart transplant (South Africa, btw, not Australia) was objected to on all the same grounds as cloning - it’s unethical, it’s amoral, it’s against the bible, it’s unnatural, etc etc etc. And the first patient died not 5 days after the transplant - because we didn’t know then about rejection. Did that stop us? No. We continued the studies and the transplants and today there are many many people alive who would not otherwise be, thanks to scientists and doctors who refused to just throw up their hands and say ‘I don’t like the answers! It’s not easy!’ People died to perfect transplants. People died to perfect vaccinations and innoculations and cures for diseases and just about every medical breakthrough we’ve ever had. People may die to prove that cloning is a viable means for saving lives - this is not a reason to stop researching human cloning before it’s even begun, just as it would not be a reason to stop research into Cancer cures or a cure for HIV/AIDS.
The fact is, our lawgivers want to stop scientists asking the questions about cloning because they are afraid of the answers, without having any idea what those answers might be. Those with the power to stifle scientific investigation have been doing this as far back as the history textbooks go - think of galileo. But so what if cloning requires specific legislation? I’m sure committees will be put together to spend time doing nothing but drafting such legislation. So what if cloning yourself is narcissistic or unnatural? You may as well go and live in a shack made of cow dung in the middle of africa if you think human beings shouldn’t do anything unnatural or narcissistic. So what if clones turn out to be soulless or evil? Then you can make the decision to outlaw cloning. But until someone proves that is the case, there is no ethical, moral, or even intelligible reason to stop a scientist asking the question: what happens if i do this?