Current Events > When will human cloning be allowed?

(+) Yeah! (+)

You think it ever will be? I think it would be cool to clone the great minds of the past. Could be an interesting experiment. Clone a bunch of Einsteins, and see if they can push science any further.

Why isn't it allowed already?
---

something human rights
---

Optimistically, never.
---

i bet it's already been done, in secret.
---

When crap like religion is finally outlawed
---

But seriously. What's wrong with human cloning? Especially if the person you're cloning is long dead, or if they requested to be cloned?
---

I mean. Idk. I guess I don't see why not if the cloned person gives consent.
---

MorbidFaithless posted...

I mean. Idk. I guess I don't see why not if the cloned person gives consent.

---

As far as cloning human organs for transplants? I hope it's soon. I could use a couple new organs.

As for cloning full people? It really serves no purpose other than slavery or warfare, both of which are not really moral situations we want to be putting ourselves in.

You guys do realize this would trigger a major eugenics movement right?
---

I'm not sure how I feel about human cloning - but I think a major concern that isn't religious in nature is this: is it ethical to produce a human being solely for the purpose of scientific experimentation/research?

What are the implications, if any, for the value of human life?
---

SageHarpuia posted...

You guys do realize this would trigger a major eugenics movement right?

Slowly filtering out weak genes over a few hundred years doesn't sound too bad.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

You guys do realize this would trigger a major eugenics movement right?

Doubtful. If we had the technology to reproduce humans through scientific means, we likely would have the ability to edit harmful genes out. This means after a generation or two, we could easily just remove any dangerous genes. There is no need for Eugenics, not to mention the very foundation of Eugenics is demonstrably false, since mutations don't singularly affect one particular 'race' of humans.

Publicly or privately allowed?

There's lots of shit that's not allowed for the public to see, but companies and governments do it anyway. As it is, it's DEFINITELY allowed privately. Whether or not it's being done or being worked on is another question.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

remove any dangerous genes.

That would be awesome. The genes wouldn't even have to be "dangerous" in nature. Inconvenient, even. Like, I have color blindness, and it's annoying. It's not a major hindrance, but it would have been nice to not have been born with it. Then theirs physical aspects that we could get rid of, like baldness. I'm sure balding people would love to not have that gene.
---

I thought nature filtered out the bad genes on its own
---

Dash_Harber posted...

SageHarpuia posted...

You guys do realize this would trigger a major eugenics movement right?

Doubtful. If we had the technology to reproduce humans through scientific means, we likely would have the ability to edit harmful genes out. This means after a generation or two, we could easily just remove any dangerous genes. There is no need for Eugenics, not to mention the very foundation of Eugenics is demonstrably false, since mutations don't singularly affect one particular 'race' of humans.

Don't even pretend militaries wouldn't jump on the chance to create super soldiers
---

Hopefully soon so we can start infinitely transplanting our minds into our clones and live forever

Dyinglegacy posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

remove any dangerous genes.

That would be awesome. The genes wouldn't even have to be "dangerous" in nature. Inconvenient, even. Like, I have color blindness, and it's annoying. It's not a major hindrance, but it would have been nice to not have been born with it. Then their physical aspects that we could get rid of, like baldness. I'm sure balding people would love to not have that gene.

Yeah, I know, dangerous is not the right word to use because genetic traits are not inherently 'good' or 'bad'. Even genetic traits that offer two different solutions to the same problem can both be good despite being mutually exclusive or opposite. For example, a trait that allows you to eat raw meat is probably equally as useful as a trait that allows you to identify raw meat easier. For the sake of discussion and brevity, though, I said dangerous.

When they figure out all the laws for it.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

As far as cloning human organs for transplants? I hope it's soon. I could use a couple new organs.

As for cloning full people? It really serves no purpose other than slavery or warfare, both of which are not really moral situations we want to be putting ourselves in.

This is my take on it also. If they could potentially make human body clones without a conscious mind or brain that realizes it is alive, or even no head at all, they could be used solely for harvesting organs and help a lot of people. They could also be infected with all kinds of diseases and used as a tool for science to experiment on in efforts to find cures with very experimental and previously frowned upon methods. Hell, even stem cell research could be vastly broadened.

But like TC said, I about guarantee you it's being done already in secret and hidden from the public. We likely won't know the truth regardless.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

SageHarpuia posted...

You guys do realize this would trigger a major eugenics movement right?

Doubtful. If we had the technology to reproduce humans through scientific means, we likely would have the ability to edit harmful genes out. This means after a generation or two, we could easily just remove any dangerous genes. There is no need for Eugenics, not to mention the very foundation of Eugenics is demonstrably false, since mutations don't singularly affect one particular 'race' of humans.

Don't even pretend militaries wouldn't jump on the chance to create super soldiers

I actually said it would be one of the only purposes in my first post. This post doesn't say that it wouldn't at all. This post is only a response to whether it would create a new Eugenics movement.

What's your opinion on gene splicing? Possibly combining the genetics of two completely separate species, to create a superior creature?

There's a jellyfish that is effectively immortal. What if science advance to a point where we could successfully integrate this aspect into a human?

EDIT: Imagine the level of racism this truly superior humanoid would get.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

What's your opinion on gene splicing? Possibly combining the genetics of two completely separate species, to create a superior creature?

There's a jellyfish that is effectively immortal. What if science advance to a point where we could successfully integrate this aspect into a human?

EDIT: Imagine the level of racism this truly superior human would get.

Skyrim belongs to the Nords!
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

What's your opinion on gene splicing? Possibly combining the genetics of two completely separate species, to create a superior creature?

There's a jellyfish that is effectively immortal. What if science advance to a point where we could successfully integrate this aspect into a human?

EDIT: Imagine the level of racism this truly superior humanoid would get.

On a serious note, something like this would incite violence from religious extremists

Dyinglegacy posted...

What's your opinion on gene splicing? Possibly combining the genetics of two completely separate species, to create a superior creature?

I think it's founded on pretty shaky science and it would simply be more effective to edit our pre-existing genes to resemble said animal genes. When an animal has a gene that makes it immortal, it is not a single gene, but a series of genes that are unique to that creatures organs.

Dyinglegacy posted...

EDIT: Imagine the level of racism this truly superior human would get.

Yeah, considering that perfectly natural gene traits face rampant unfair hatred, I'd say you are right.

Never. Also some crazy person will end up cloning Hitler.
---

You mean you wouldn't call cloning humans and "discarding" the clones with unfavorable traits a new Eugenics movement?
---

Reis posted...

On a serious note, something like this would incite violence from religious extremists

Probably from nonreligious as well. I'd be hella jelly of a... jellyfish man.

Imagine how angry people would get at this guy, as they are getting old, and he's stayin' young forever.
---

Certainly nonreligious people will as well, but it completely flies in the face of what religious people believe so it'd be way more prevalent there

SageHarpuia posted...

You mean you wouldn't call cloning humans and "discarding" the clones with unfavorable traits a new Eugenics movement?

Again, at the point where we could do that, we could probably edit genes out before the clone was 'born'. You wouldn't need to discard anything because you literally have to purposely leave those traits in there. It would be the modern equivalent of purposely creating manufacturing errors on a product.

creativerealms posted...

Never. Also some crazy person will end up cloning Hitler.

Clone Hitler, and then execute the clone.
---

When we're to the point of colonizing other planets or after Yellowstone goes off and we gotta get our numbers back up.

Dyinglegacy posted...

creativerealms posted...

Never. Also some crazy person will end up cloning Hitler.

Clone Hitler, and then execute the clone.

EDIT: New black mirror episode inc
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

Clone Hitler, and then execute the clone.

For all intents and purposes, Hitler's clone would be an innocent person. The subject of cloning certainly brings up a slew of ethical issues that are irrespective of religion, because the clones of people are still sentient living creatures.

Reis posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

Clone Hitler, and then execute the clone.

For all intents and purposes, Hitler's clone would be an innocent person. The subject of cloning certainly brings up a slew of ethical issues that are irrespective of religion, because the clones of people are still sentient living creatures.

It was a joke lol. Don't ruin my funny!
---

What if someone cloned you against your will and your clone decides to take your life over.

Which CEmen do we trust
---

apocalyptic_4 posted...

What if someone cloned you against your will and your clone decides to take your life over.

The clone likely wouldn't be 'me' at all, because my experiences and memories shape a serious amount of who I am as a person.

If we clone beautiful women, will regular guys be able to get beautiful GFs?
---

Here's the biggest question though. Would your clone be able to share a GameFAQs account with you since they technically are you? @SBAllen bettered start thinking about this
---

So on unrelated note, TC how do you feel about androids if they were to create AI that can achieve the same level of cognizance as people have? Would it be ethical to use them as basically slaves to do menial tasks: cooking, cleaning etc.

If they are self aware, and virtually indistinguishable from people, I think it would be not only unethical to slave them, but unwise.
---

Anybody else remember when the Raelians just kept lying and saying they cloned people?
---

SageHarpuia posted...

I thought nature filtered out the bad genes on its own

Well, it was supposed to. Then we invented medicine and stuff to live 2 or 3 times as long as we were supposed to.
---

WaffIeElite posted...

Publicly or privately allowed?

There's lots of shit that's not allowed for the public to see, but companies and governments do it anyway. As it is, it's DEFINITELY allowed privately. Whether or not it's being done or being worked on is another question.

This. In the United States, it's not illegal at all. You just can't use government funds to do it.
---

DoomSwell posted...

SageHarpuia posted...

I thought nature filtered out the bad genes on its own

Well, it was supposed to. Then we invented medicine and stuff to live 2 or 3 times as long as we were supposed to.

It's also important to note that in addition to altering how we live through medicine and technology, traits are not generally inherently good or bad. Traits are highly situational and something that may be great in one setting is useless in another. For example, having a slightly higher body temperature would be amazing if you lived in the Arctic, but would likely cause you to be more susceptible to heat stroke in the tropics. Having hands that are perfectly adapted for typing would give you an advantage in the modern world, but would be useless trying to hunt game on the Serengeti.

Also, importantly, some traits just won't be eliminated. Mutation means that traits just show up randomly. Without actual intelligent 'gene editing', it's unlikely we'd ever be able to eliminate any particular gene. It's also the reason that Eugenics is bunk; any race can pretty much develop any gene. Some have genes specifically because of generations of that gene being passed down, but that has to do with heredity, not race, and mutation could result in losing that trait or gaining other ones.

not sure how i managed to read this as "human clowning"
---