Tinerr, I think most of us realise that we're not at that stage yet. We're just shooting the shit on cloning in general.
That's what I meant. Donor, in medical context, just refers to the person who supplies whatever they're supplying.
I'd guess that it'd be the same way that it is now. Some institutions would share the details and some wouldn't. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any legal requirement (in Aus, at least) on current institutions to supply the details.
Though, regardless, I'd say it'd be a bit easier tracking down someone who looked exactly like you, than not.
Originally Posted by Dr_Strangelove
Why would you donate your DNA if you know there is going to be a high demand for it? It will probably end up being sold, rather than donated.
That's what I meant. Donor, in medical context, just refers to the person who supplies whatever they're supplying.
Originally Posted by Dr_Strangelove
Another interesting question: Would DNA donor/sellers be allowed to remain anonymous? Will the clones be able to track down their "biological parent" (for lack of a better term) like the children of sperm donors? Will they count as or by treated as a next of kin?
I'd guess that it'd be the same way that it is now. Some institutions would share the details and some wouldn't. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any legal requirement (in Aus, at least) on current institutions to supply the details.
Though, regardless, I'd say it'd be a bit easier tracking down someone who looked exactly like you, than not.
What do you guys think of cloning? How could this impact our day-to-day lives in the future? Organ transplants? Cloning farm animals for more food? What about cloning humans? Ethics? Other thoughts/concerns?
Cloning of plants has and will always be a good thing used the way it is used now, cloning of farm animals will probably be more perfected and a good alternative in the future, cloning humans I can't really see happening for the next 50 years, too much ethical debate over this which is understandable. There are still even ethical debates around the cloning of plants which is something that has led to a decrease of world hunger. Interspecial cloning is now a viable option thanks to Stewart Brand and his amazing coworkers research.
relevant video
http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_bra...you_ready.html
Cloning of plants has and will always be a good thing used the way it is used now, cloning of farm animals will probably be more perfected and a good alternative in the future, cloning humans I can't really see happening for the next 50 years, too much ethical debate over this which is understandable. There are still even ethical debates around the cloning of plants which is something that has led to a decrease of world hunger. Interspecial cloning is now a viable option thanks to Stewart Brand and his amazing coworkers research.
relevant video
http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_bra...you_ready.html
Last edited by Ezeth; Jun 29, 2013 at 08:43 PM.
Originally Posted by hanz0
I'm also unsure exactly what I'm misrepresenting about said posts. The points I brought up were all valid issues with the posts. Using a clone of yourself to undertake your responsibilities requires that the clone be the same age as you. Creating clone armies requires the same or accelerated aging or about 20 years of foresight. Cloning an individual other than yourself requires that you have access to their genomes.
Unless, of course, you were simply throwing around "OMG LOGICAL FALLACY" because you think it advances the discussion and/or makes you feel superior*. Sometimes people do that.
* This is the part where you go "OMG AD HOMINEM THAT MEANS I WIN THE ARGUMENT" and then nobody pays attention.
OMG AD HOMINEM THAT MEANS I WIN THE ARGUMENT
As you said, the points you brought up were all valid points; however, they are navigatable. The "using a clone to take up the same responsibilities as you" issue, you have a completely accurate point. However, in basic household chores, a clone of six or seven years is more than sufficient for taking over basic duties. Sure, there is no immediate result, but there is the potential for future responsibility alleviation.
As for the army: twenty year foresight isn't impossible, especially not for many governments. Sure, predicting a war outright is outrageous, but preparing during times of conflict (e.g. Early Cold War) is more than reasonable. It would have its uses.
As for rights to genomes--I would say that is a whole separate topic. I think what's being assumed is that you have access to human's genomes, otherwise there is almost no reason to discuss human cloning. You're, again, correct that we'd need access though. I personally think that many people would be willing to submit themselves for cloning (assuming that it is proven to work and regulated by a corporation or government). I have no evidence for or against that though, so feel free to ignore that claim.
I was trying to point out that you're attacking their claims based on the lack of immediate result. With a bit of foresight and time though, most of what they said is at least semi-plausible. You are not incorrect on any point, however.
Gamemaster -- Need help? Click here!
I'm like... supposed to advocate for Team Aikido or something. Click that link if you're great at aikido.
I'm like... supposed to advocate for Team Aikido or something. Click that link if you're great at aikido.
Originally Posted by Zoro
As you said, the points you brought up were all valid points; however, they are navigatable. The "using a clone to take up the same responsibilities as you" issue, you have a completely accurate point. However, in basic household chores, a clone of six or seven years is more than sufficient for taking over basic duties. Sure, there is no immediate result, but there is the potential for future responsibility alleviation.
Well, yes. But you have to keep in mind that even though such a person would be obligated to be defined as a 'clone', they are still very much human.
Doing something such as that would be completely immoral, considering that they are no different than a child that would have been born normally.
Originally Posted by Skolfe
Well, yes. But you have to keep in mind that even though such a person would be obligated to be defined as a 'clone', they are still very much human.
Doing something such as that would be completely immoral, considering that they are no different than a child that would have been born normally.
I wasn't talking about the morality of it, just the practical application of cloning.
For the morality argument, I would say that, in the event human cloning becomes possible, clone-racism would become prevalent. No way to argue for or against that, though, so I just ignored it.
Gamemaster -- Need help? Click here!
I'm like... supposed to advocate for Team Aikido or something. Click that link if you're great at aikido.
I'm like... supposed to advocate for Team Aikido or something. Click that link if you're great at aikido.
