Well, Now What? (Cloning)

Remove all ads!

I see cloning as being alot like playing God. God is a creator who can decide which creatures will be here and which creatures won't. If scientists clone animals or people then we are deciding who or what we want to exist, much like God would.

 

I'd like to point out that we already have clones of people. They're called identical twins. Explain the difference between that and cloning.

 

BTA - I think there is a bit of a difference here. With selective breeding we are still exposed to certain genetic randomness. I look at my pure bred beagle, he sure looks and acts alot different than other beagles. I would say 'cloning' involves specific genetic engineering that entirely bypasses the mechanics of breeding. The difference between cloning and breeding deals with the level of control that we have on the desired outcome.

Amaster - Identical twins occur when the fetus (still at the cellular level) splits in two, resulting in two genetically identical babies. Of course there are also paternal twins in which two seperate eggs are fertilized, resulting in genetically different babies.
My definition of cloning would be taking genetic samples from existing creatures in order to produce an exact replica.

[This message has been edited by Lord Moeken (edited June 22, 2001).]

 

I understand your point BTA. I guess control of breeding seems less 'God-like' than actual mapping and selecting specific genes, but it is a means to a similar ends. I guess when I made my previous comment about playing 'God' I wasn't really thinking about selective breeding.
"Hey boy, make sure you don't put that herford bull in with the simmentals, who knows what we'll get!", just doesn't have the ominous overtones that cloning implies.

 

Oh but it does have ominous implications. Just scroll up and read some of the earlier posts - there's an element of fright contained in many of the comments.
What would be the consequences? Cloning could bring back extinct species, improve existing species, or as you mentioned perhaps create new species. Clone a blade of grass or a lamb and it seems fairly benign, but if it works for one species it works for others, and as you mentioned it probably won't stop at 'simple' replication, that is the ominous part. How can we know that we won't be screwing everything up? If you look at the basic laws of evolution (if you believe in that sort of thing) small genetic mutations are the driving force behind survival of the fittest. If we have control over our genes, then the randomness of evolution is effectively gone. I realise that we humans have been ignoring 'survival of the fittest' for quite some time, but start messing with genetics and we start messing with the existance of life itself. Just sounds scary and God-like to me.

 

I have to run off and read some definitions from the dictionary. Hey didn't you see Jurassic Park?

 

But... But.... I'm bound and determined to get the last word. Genetic engineering and cloning go hand in hand, you can't have cloning without genetic engineering. We have reduced this discussion to a debate about definitions. I have to go for a business lunch for a bit so I'll not be able to respond... Forward any comments to Kenmoe, he is my newly aquired twin.

 

Moeken. I know what identical twins are. I was asking what people think the difference between identical twins and clones are. Twins are identical. Clones are identical (or will be if the technology is refined enough). I don't see a difference. Fine, playing god sounds scary, but is it any more scary than spliting the atom and making huge explosions that render an area uninhabitable for years?

 

Some more food for thought..

Do you think we should use cloning to prevent extinction of specific species?

 

When a species is extinct it is extinct.
Cloning them is messing around with
fate. We can't change the past we can only create the future. What we should do is preserve what is left.

 

I find it interesting that when you look at history to determine when our society's aversion to genetic tampering began, it seems that everyone thought it was the best idea since sliced bread right up until it became very clear how horribly Nazi scientists were misusing the knowledge they had- not to mention the dreadful things they did to get that knowledge.

The science in old Heinlein novels (written after the war but reflecting his pre-war ideas about cloning and genetic engineering) seems downright evil now, and of course that's not the way he intended it at all. Sad, really- there were good ideas in with the bad ones and in our terror of opening Pandora's box we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

 

You make a good point Sprite. What else is there to fear but fear itself. So consequently, we should fear nothing and try experimenting whethering or not it is humane because it could cause some good if used correctly. But if there is no fear, what will keep what I like to call "the locals" in line? I dunno our a/c is broke and it's late. I don't even know if I'm making sense. I gotta go.