Welcome to HBGames, a leading amateur game development forum and Discord server. All are welcome, and amongst our ranks you will find experts in their field from all aspects of video game design and development.
A clone is an identical copy of a plant or animal, produced from the genetic material of a single organism. After the creation of Dolly, the first mammal clone (a sheep), many countries put a moratorium on human cloning in order to retard the efforts of geneticists to create a human clone. Despite this moratorium, a Korean doctor is said to have created and killed the first human clone, proving it possible to clone a human being. Should human cloning be allowed? If so, under what conditions? Does human cloning take away from the meaning of humanity? Does it add to it? Discuss the concept of human cloning.
to be perfectly honest, I see no problems with it. the extent to which we can diddle the human genome is as of now quite limited, and even if we can create the Perfect Human (tm) I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing. human being with more efficient metabolisms would help issues with food scarcity. stronger bodies and stronger minds would contribute to the betterment of society. these traits would presumably enter the gene pool proper and the human race in general would be better for it.
as for the identity of humanity, I certainly don't define myself by the knowledge that at some point I emerged from a distended vagina, and while I believe in the soul, I don't think you necessarily have to be born in the classical sense to have one. whatever the process, it's still the birth of sapient life.
besides, reasonably speaking, a clone would tend to differ greatly from its progenitor in all ways except basic appearance. who we are is largely dependent on the sum of our experiences, and cloning is not going to replicate all of the cloned individual's thoughts, ideas, and memories.
in short, I don't understand what the hubbub is. I don't get why you'd want to clone someone, but if you do, it's certainly not a crime against the natural condition. if your deity of choice didn't want humanity to do something, remember that it's omnipotent; it would be completely impossible and would never have occurred to anyone in the first place.
I fail to see how clones are appreciably different from identical twins, age difference and artificial creation aside. And it's not like there's no precedent for artificial creation of babies, either; I myself am the product of artificial insemination. So as long as you don't start doing fucked up things with cloning (e.g. Brave New World), and I don't see it being misused with any greater likelihood than any other creation of modern science, then I don't think it's an issue.
Genetic engineering is a much more interesting subject imo, and there's been a lot of literature written about it. If it became common, I think it would cause a lot of resentment among unmodified humans, but in the long run it benefits humanity. So any strife in the meantime is growing pains, I guess.
Cloning isn't really the problem, in many people's view. The problem is the idea that we can modify a human being. Many people believe this will lead to a world like the one seen in GATTACA, where the new elite are those who were modified, and the unmodified have become second-class citizens.
cloning for the purpose of harvesting organs is an incredible boon to medical science. cloning entire human beings with the purpose of their living on .... I don't see the point. it's just making a baby that happens to look a lot like someone else.
Though cloning is still a broken process. Cloned creatures are inferior specimens; they have a tendency towards dying very quickly.
The fundamental flaw here is that strength in a species comes from diversity of the gene pool. Inbreeding results in inferior children--and cloning is an extremely pure form of inbreeding.
Cloning isn't really the problem, in many people's view. The problem is the idea that we can modify as human being. Many people believe this will lead to a world like the one seen in GATTACA, where the new elite are those who were modified, and the unmodified have become second-class citizens.
As far as problems go, they can be avoided. As far as morality towards it - I see no problem, so far as it is done for just purposes. By the time we figure out how to do it, however, I fear there will be far worse problems to deal with. Our population grows too fast as it is. Using this as a panacea is stupid. We need to keep our population at zero growth instead of the exponential curve we're on now. If used wisely, cloning is okay.
Glitchfinder":2a5nw5g7 said:
Cloning isn't really the problem, in many people's view. The problem is the idea that we can modify a human being. Many people believe this will lead to a world like the one seen in GATTACA, where the new elite are those who were modified, and the unmodified have become second-class citizens.
They stole that shit from Brave New World. Unless Gattaca was created before 1932... As far as that concept goes, it's highly possible. If we can replicate an entire genome, we will surely figure out how to modify it.
Yeah, the whole neo eugenic thing is what creeps me out about it. Opposition to it is usually lauded as NEO LUDDITE NONSENSE, but there are legitimate dangers in this knowledge, as is the same for any new technology.
So... rmxp users are all people who have no problem with cloning?
Well, some people say that if you can create a clone, that'll be akin to creating life... being god... which evangelists and jihadists and whatnot don't like. That's one reason.
The elitist society would be another. It's pretty simple enough.
Not only that, some would refuse to get modifications to their genomes and stuff, because they like being natural or whatever(hey, we got naturalists now, we'll have them in the future).
Another would be the psychological developments of a clone. Imagine: you're the only damn clone in the human world, and everyone knows it... and of course, your lifespan must be a bit different...
Personally, I don't have a problem with cloning, except maybe for the elitist society part. Evangelists: not one, psychological developments: not one, and darwinistic societies already exists, so it barely matters to me.
Well, some people say that if you can create a clone, that'll be akin to creating life... being god... which evangelists and jihadists and whatnot don't like. That's one reason.
I never understand these sorts of arguments. people create life all the time. it's called "pregnancy." the motive and the method behind cloning are similar to the creation of a zygote under normal circumstances, just without the fun bits. people who object to this sort of thing on religious bases are just being silly. okay, what are the rules to creating life? that it's cool as long as someone had an orgasm around the time of fertilization?
Another would be the psychological developments of a clone. Imagine: you're the only damn clone in the human world, and everyone knows it...
why would you be the only clone? and why would there be enough of an appreciable difference from a human being for everyone to be able to notice?
clones having identity issues is something fiction writers take too far. like I said before, my personal identity does not depend on the knowledge that I came from a vagina, and there's no merit to "I'm just a copy" whatsoever; the surface physical characteristics would be the same, but the mind would be its own thing.
clones having identity issues is something fiction writers take too far. like I said before, my personal identity does not depend on the knowledge that I came from a vagina, and there's no merit to "I'm just a copy" whatsoever; the surface physical characteristics would be the same, but the mind would be its own thing.
I think you're oversimplifying it. It's one thing to be like 'ehh i came from a vagina', because that's uh, the natural way that's been done since forever. But I think more than one person would be a little sore to find out he was created in a government lab somewhere.
I think the problem with cloning isn't so much the idea of playing god (although I'm sure that plays a rather large role in some people's minds) so much as what cloning is for - IE, not so much "hey look what we can do!" but "Hey look this person is an identical match to this person" so they're a veritable grab-bag of meat and organs. What's that? You've gone blind? Clone's got a spare. Lung cancer? Your perfect match's right here! Leukemia? Pfft!
It's the fact that you're not creating organs in a lab - you're creating living, breathing, and presumably thinking humans - that creates the real questions of what is right and what isn't. Certainly it would be a huge boon to science and the medical community - but would we be able to get over our taboo of killing others? Is that really a good thing?
Don't get me wrong - I'm desperately waiting for genetic engineering to catch up with modern science. But cloning whole humans is still hinky.
to harvest organs, they can (or, are close to being able to) clone only the organ. yes, it's possible. in a controlled environment they can clone only a very primitive circulatory system connected to the tissue, and the needed organ itself, set up on life support until it's formed enough to be removed and implanted. they don't need to clone an entire human being to get a liver, for example. so no there would be no need to do something like that, it'd be a huge waste of resources for no reason.
also it would not be necessary for something like eyes. it would be needed for something that is life-threatening and has an incredibly high probability for donor rejection, like a liver, heart, or pancreas. Or, something which can never be donated with precision needed, like a face.
at the end of the day it will always be cheaper and easier to just harvest an organ off a dead donor. the viability of the organs which usually fail the recipient will be the determining factor in whether or not a person decides to invest the money into creating a cloned "back-up" for themselves.
Looks like somebody beat me to the point: why this is an issue. The question isn't, "Is it right to be creating and playing with life," it's "Would it be right to create life for the purpose of being destroyed?" Religious zealots might focus on the former argument, but it's not important, to us or God or anybody; see what mawk said for why.
I'm going to saturate you all a bit more with literary examples. Gattaca was mentioned, though that's not the threat of cloning, it's the threat of genetic engineering. Also, it's not really the same idea as Brave New World. In Gattaca, the ones at a disadvantage are the ones who have not been modified; they have a random set of strengths and weaknesses, whereas the engineered have no physiological weaknesses. In Brave New World, however, the ones at the top are genetically enhanced, whereas the ones at the bottom are genetically inhibited, so as to create an actual caste system based on uniformity; the lower castes are uniformly inferior, rather than randomly inferior.
[off-topic]
Brave New World wouldn't be all that bad if we could get there, either, at least not for 95% of the population. Most people now don't use their higher cognitive abilities, and it really isn't necessary for them. The question one must ask is, What is the meaning of life, and the purpose of existence? If the answer is to enjoy one's self and live each day for the pleasure of living, then Brave New World is the ideal situation. If the answer is something else, if it involves emotional turbulence, or pain, or real artistry, then it is a horrible situation. In this sense, by casting Brave New World as a dystopian society, Huxley is telling us that the purpose of existence is beyond our immediate pleasure. But then, 95% of the population never experiences, or desires to experience, that purpose.
[/off-topic]
Another example to bring up would be from Star Trek (original series). Khan was part of a group of genetically enhanced humans, stronger and smarter than everyone else. What happened with him and the rest of his kind is that, "with increased ability came increased ambition." The natural drive of eugenics is to promote the superiority of a master race, which in the case of genetic engineering might be real (based on physical reality) instead of imagined (based on lineage and abstract history) as in the early 20th century. In this case it would not be a good idea to create a group of more genetically capable human beings, as that group would in turn seek to collectively rule the world, most likely in violent opposition to each other.
But the example I bring up that is actually relevant to the topic of cloning is the book Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro. If you'd like to read it for yourself, don't read on as I will completely spoil the entire premise:
In Never Let Me Go, genetics and cloning allow for a state program to produce clones for "donations," in which the clones, at the end of their lives (artificially in their mid-twenties) begin donated all of their organs to non-cloned individuals. This starts with non-essential organs, and moves on to the vitals in the final stages, leaving the clones bed-ridden for months to years during the process. In the book, these people are viewed as less than human, a commodity, and are treated as such. It supposes a future in which people can believe that clones are not capable of humanity as other people are, most likely because the program saves lives, and one does not want to think that a life-saving program, one that could save YOUR life, might really be destroying life.
It's a very sad, and ultimately fulfilling and thought-provoking, read.
EDIT: I've also just read it's being made into a film in England. Can't wait to see it.
