Comment on this entry
Five Reasons Not To Clone Yourself
Given the current state of technology, reproductive cloning is not a safe and effective means of human reproduction. Cloning reduces genetic diversity, is beneficial neither for the child nor the parent, and without restrictions could create many legal and social problems.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Replicant on 07/28 at 02:42 PM
What about cloning the Einsteins and Mozarts? Freeze the clones and start them up whenever one goes defunct. Give them the same (but of course upgraded) upbringing. In a few, not to speak of a thousand generations, you’d be sure to get something worth all the trouble.
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 07/28 at 05:39 PM
I am for therapeutic cloning, but adamantly opposed to “reproductive” cloning.
Why? Because no reason I have yet encountered FOR “reproductive” cloning is not about making the clone a slave.
Clone children? You are seeking to “re-do” your own life through forcing your clone to re-experiencing your childhood.
Cloning a dead child? You are seeking to force the child to be a replacement copy of the original child lost.
Fullbody clones for organs? This one should be obvious without elaboration.
Clone soldiers? “Expendable troops” Nuff Said?
Please, someone, give a use for “reproductive clones” that does not assume the slavery of the clone, and the denial of it’s freewill. I’ve tried, and can’t. As such, I cannot support “reproductive cloning” under any circumstances.
Posted by Akansha Bhargava on 07/28 at 06:53 PM
The idea of cloning Mozarts and Einsteins is interesting….Provided that only one living clone exists at a time and the original person being cloned is deceased (and that cloning is safe) many of the arguments raised against cloning seem to not apply. However, new conflicts would arise such as, who decides which past geniuses will be cloned, how will we decide which individuals merit cloning, who gets to raise a clone, etc. Given the advancements made with education and technology and resources in an increasingly well-connected world there are probably more individuals with such exceptional ability being born today. Why pass up new creations for a clone?...
The only reason to keep cloning people who have already lived is because we assume they (the clones) will continue in their tradition of great contribution. Is there really full guarantee the will also be as extraordinary. What if the clone of Mozart finds he likes engineering more than composing or the cloned Einstein hates physics and math or does not realize ability in anything. There are examples of twins raised together (same genes and environment) where one is accomplished and the other doesn’t really amount to anything.
There is also the matter of whether it is DNA or DNA+ unique life experiences that allowed people such as Einstein and Mozart to accomplish what they did during their lives. For example Mozart’s father was the head of the royal orchestra and a wonderful teacher. Many of them Einstein included had difficult childhoods and struggled with their ability. The social outcast faced by a lot of geniuses may be an inspiring and contributing factor towards their success or may be detrimental to them and their future clones. Either way, it would be impossible to exactly replicate the lifestyles and experiences they grew up with.
There would also be extreme pressure placed on said individuals not only by those raising them but by complete strangers as well once they learn they are the clone of a famous individual. If the government puts in place this program of cloning, is the clone then indebted to the government? If the government is responsible for their upbringing and education, are they then obligated to follow in the career path and assignments set forth for them? How does this affect their free will?
Posted by mike3 on 07/28 at 09:10 PM
I think we need to keep the genome as diverse as possible, lest we end up like the horribly inbred dogs.
If we’re worried about passing genetic defects to children, perhaps the better focus should be on the development of a method to remove or neutralize the bad genes in the embryo, instead of going and cloning the parents. This would reduce the impact on diversity.
Posted by Bruno César on 07/31 at 02:37 PM
I think than a clone is a prove that argument than the human would like be similar at GOD!!! Never will be!!
Posted by Jochen L Leidner, MA MPhil PhD on 07/31 at 03:14 PM
I’m less worried about the dangers of cloning than about the daily slaughtering of unborn children around the world and the lack of medical care, food, shelter, safety and education for those children already born.
I wish more people would focus on solving existing problems at least as much as on creating news ones.
Jochen Leidner
http://www.jochenleidner.com
Posted by dan on 07/31 at 07:45 PM
no reason to stop something entirely valid before it even starts. reasons given are fabricated fears not based on science, statistics, or experience. a good paper for your philosophy class though.
lets see some generic criteria on who is allowed to bear and raise children. ideally, i’d rather see no more children or religion…they are both false promises of immortality and the most massive drains and distractions from the most important effort in life…to improve health and lifespan.
Posted by Sty on 08/01 at 12:28 AM
Dan, you make NO sense. Children are the future. God most surely exists, as revealed in scripture. Every legally (according to God) married couple should be allowed to bear and raise an unlimited number of children. The world is blooming with truth, beauty and increasing balance today, just like the Lord intended and promised. What is wrong with you?!
Posted by dan on 08/01 at 01:04 PM
oh, ok, i forgot about gods Zeus and Allah. 
Posted by iPan on 08/01 at 03:30 PM
Ok, is there really any difference between ‘cloning’ and sexual reproduction?
Not really, not when you strip away the lame arguments.
I had a conversation with a friend once, who was trying to argue against even genetic therapy. I pointed out to her that the only difference is the level of control a person can have over it. We ALREADY select for genetic traits, mostly based on sub-conscious mate selection patterns. This is genetic engineering, in a subliminal way.
When a person selects another person to have a child, they do so based on traits they wish that child to have.
Is ‘cloning’ really any different, with the exception that the level of control one would have over it to be greater?
The only thing that actually matters, is that the ‘clone’ (i.e. child) is protected by the SAME legal rights that all children are protected by. It matters not how the child was made, only that all laws that apply to a person also apply to this person.
And here’s the second thing: ‘cloning’ will be a very, very short lived thing anyway. Humanity is actually growing out of it’s biological substrate, soon to be permanently uploaded. I wouldn’t worry about it too much (though I’m sure some wackos are going to make a few mistakes a long the way: just keep in mind, cloned or not, all children are ‘people’ and are entitled to the same rights as all other children).
Posted by zarif on 08/01 at 08:49 PM
Thank you Dan :D i agree with u all the way :D
Posted by So on 08/02 at 12:02 AM
Five reasons to clone yourself:
You’re funny, inventive, musical, mathematical, *hawt*. Any one will do, combos are counted as reasons to clone yourself multiple times.
Posted by Edward on 08/04 at 12:27 PM
@Ipan
One major difference between the cloning and sexual reproduction is that sexual reproduction produces a genetically unique individual, which in various ways benefits a species. Cloning, on the other hand creates a genetic copy, which is more or less detrimental to a species (like inbreeding, only worse.)
While I have no doubts that mind uploading is achievable, it is doubtful that it will ever really catch on with the general population, and certainly not to the point that literally everyone exists as software. Mind uploading has serious ethical and philosophical issues.
Mind uploading is very similar to cloning itself; the uploaded mind is a copy of an individual, not the individual itself. It’s a new person with the brain patterns and memories of another. I can’t imagine that very many healthy people would sacrifice their lives so that a digital copy of their mind can live vicariously in cyberspace. This is not to say that I think “mindclones” won’t exist, but it is far more likely that they will exist alongside biological humans than in exclusivity.
Posted by TechIsGood on 08/05 at 07:28 PM
There could be some benefits of cloning, but I only see them in the frame of some looming danger e.g. mass infertility. To me the most bothersome aspect is if a clone would have a soul? Because if it didn’t, that would be pretty scary…and of course would pose all kinds of problems.
Posted by Edward on 08/05 at 07:57 PM
@ TechIsGood
What is a soul, empirically?
I’m not sure if I have one.
Posted by Abraham on 08/08 at 06:29 PM
Edward, I’m not sure what a soul is, but maybe these philosophers can offer some suggestions:
The Waning of Materialism by Robert C. Koons, et al. - 23 major philosophers - from Oxford, Yale, UCLA and other universities - use all the tools of the latest philosophy to show the insufficiency of a materialist view of the world.
Posted by TechIsGood on 08/09 at 02:35 PM
Edward,
then how about we use the term “consciousness”. Would a clone have a consciousness?
Posted by Hannah on 10/22 at 09:02 PM
you are right….. cloning is not good….....
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog