Cloning

[Nisage 31]

You all know of cloning right, and what we have cloned so far? The cloned sheep named Dolly, the cloned Dog, cloned Monkey. I believe there was a Cow in Japan (Yeah, the Japanese cloned a Cow, with a higher success rate then america. Pretty cool huh?) Anyway, should we also clone humans? In my opinion, no. We should be cloning other things like endandered animals, and plants (the ones that make food, like Watermelons). There would be no such thing as "World Hunger" if we can eat cloned fruits, vegetables, and animals. True, if you did clone yourself, and if you have a heart attack, you can use your clones heart, and you'd be good as new (can't say much for the clone though, can I? :P). But I'm not so sure about that option of cloning a human. Would they have the same likes, dislikes, memories, anything from the original person, or will it be like in those movies and it'll be an evil clone that'll conquer the world?

[Polraudio 122]

Cloning a human wouldn't be so bad. Sure we have enough humans around. Just think of this tho less aids and other diseases to go around. Instead of having a kid clone your self and kind of make them look different some how.

 

I would have to agree. It would be nice to do it to animals to eat.

 

I dont think you can do it with a plant tho.

 

Would they have the same likes, dislikes, memories, anything from the original person, or will it be like in those movies and it'll be an evil clone that'll conquer the world?

Actually they would be a totally different person. The only thing alike is that you look the same and sound the same.

 

Cloning a human wouldn't be so bad. Sure we have enough humans around. Just think of this tho less aids and other diseases to go around. Instead of having a kid clone your self and kind of make them look different some how.

[formlesstree4 18]

Cloning something is moral values. I am game for it, and here's why:

 

1. If you clone a cow that was large, healthy and gave lots of meat, that cloned cow would produce the exact same quantity of meat and health, because it is an exact replica of the cow. Cloning other things like plants and endangered animals would save them, and increase food production for us, and if we clone the best kind of each plant species, we'd never have to worry about getting sick plants, (AKA we clone a plant with natural resistance to disease). In the long run, we'd practically eliminate natural selection, and that could have some interesting side effects, but it could be perfect in ending world hunger, food shortages, illnesses caused by bad food sources, etc.

[Unka Josh 0]

Actually, a clone isn't going to be an exact copy. Your genes do not, despite popular belief, control every aspect of your being-- not even your physical being.

 

During development, your body forms by an interaction between your DNA and the environment that your fetus is in. During infancy, your brain develops differently depending on education and nutrition. Both heredity and environment shape every living thing. An identical twin isn't truly identical in every regard. A large, healthy cow, cloned, wouldn't really be very different from any other cow-- early nutrition is at least as important for size and health as genetics.

 

The main problem with a lot of the potential uses of cloning is that there's nothing special about how you create a clone-- a clone of a living thing is created by the normal process of birth. A cloned cow requires just as much space, grain, and time to become an adult as a normal cow.

 

Also, cloning can run into the same problem as overbreeding-- if, for example, a disease evolves that the cloned cow is weak against, all the cows will be, and then what? This is actually a serious problem for current agriculture, without cloning.

 

The major benefit to cloning is the creation of perfectly matched donor organs-- a problem if we can't work out how to create just a heart or a liver, but need to create an entire living human being for the purpose. If we can, though, the health benefits could be considerable.

 

For those who could afford it, anyway. (Goes of muttering about his lack of health insurance.)

[bobzombie 0]

Well....

 

While the clone would be genetically identical, the environment affects a person in a multitude of ways (EX. sun= tans, freckles, and skin cancer). So the clone of an obese couch potato may choose to lift weights and surf... making a genetically identical (mostly), tanned, athletic person.

 

A person's resistance to disease is determined by by both your genes and life experiences (EX. some people are naturally prone to heart disease, yet getting the chicken pox grants you life-long immunity.)

So for certain lethal diseases, clones would fall prey to massive wide-spread epidemics, yet for other more ordinary diseases (the cold) they would develop individual resistances to it.

 

Ohhhh. and clones would have all of the intelligence, emotions and potentials of a normal human. So is it right to grow them for organs? NO.

 

So yeah? Should we? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on your out look.

[Eagyn 0]

Cloning is a very touchy subject in todays society. One thing we briefly went over was cloning specific organs. Somatic cell nuclear transfer used in stem cell research boasts the capability to replicate specific types of cells (organs/tissues ect). Now, as a society how can we not take advantage of such? Pushing the research to increase success rates and so forth wouldn't greatly help us. This method is nearly identical to transplants, only it's a replica of your organ.

 

Yes, we do have new and further advances coming closer to doing such with different processes; this is but an idea on the over all morality of cloning.

 

Here's a quick 'English' approach to the SCNT side of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_...m_cell_research

[Nisage 31]

I wonder if, eventually when the technology for cloning gets better, could we clone extinct animals like Dinosaurs? We could literally have a Jurassic Park.

[Unka Josh 0]

Well, it depends. Mammoths? Very possibly-- we could implant the zygote in an elephant, and it would work pretty well.

 

The problem is that development-- the growth of a single fertilized egg cell into an organism capable of surviving on its own-- in large, complex, land-dwelling organisms is the result of a complex interaction between their genetic coding and the environment that they are in, whether it be an egg or the mother's body. Development cannot happen properly without a suitable environment. (This doesn't apply to some water-dwelling creatures like sea urchins, but they're a special case, and their zygotic death rate is so stupidly high that I don't have words for it.)

 

This does mean that the same zygote, implanted in different mothers, will almost certainly develop slightly differently.

 

The upshot of this is simple: If you clone Einstein or Hitler, you still have to implant the zygotic genius/dictator into a host mother, who will get pregnant and give birth in the usual way. If you clone a dog or a sheep, the same thing applies. If you clone a chicken, you'll still need a chicken-- that egg won't form on its own.

 

If you clone a dinosaur...?

 

Instant problems right there.

[Nisage 31]

A mammoth would be cool. Well if you clone the herbivore dinosaurs you're fine. If you clone a T-rex or any other carnivore dinosaur........ Oh boy....... Also, I heard that some people hate the idea of cloning since it means we're trying to be like a God and make creatures (or is it re-create them?)

[OverlordMao 0]

It would probably remake them.

 

Cloning... thats a hard-hit area. True, overpopulation from cloned beings is dangerous. And what if we acidentally cloned cancer!? :o

However, cloning food is good to end world hunger... hmm, I wonder if we could clone water... :huh:

Get back on topic, Yes, cloning can be good, and yes, cloning can be bad. Its how cloning is used that determins if its good or not.

 

Why would anyone resurrect a dinosaur? Herbivore or Carnivore?

[Polraudio 122]

Why would anyone resurrect a dinosaur? Herbivore or Carnivore?

Think bout this. People who are mad with power will want to do this. so that's why it can never get in the wrong hands.

[Nisage 31]

But that would be a cool game. A villian someohow has the power to clone anyone, and anything they desire. (I call copyright to it, no one else can use that idea unless they ask :P) Anyway, cloning should only be used for the "good" of humanity, as long as you don't try to clone gold, silver, diamonds, and things like that. That would really bring chaos, right?

[Marked 197]

I would have to agree. It would be nice to do it to animals to eat.

 

I dont think you can do it with a plant tho.

I do not think we can use clones for producing meat. If countries used cloning, for example countries where it is cheaper to import meat than to make it themselves, then they would not import any more. New Zealand's main economy is farming(im not sure if it is sill the our largest export), our country pretty much started with exporting meat on huge ships overseas. If cloning eliminated the need for countries who cannot produce meat as cheap as they can import it, then it would have a huge effect on our economy. It would have a huge effect on New Zealands economy. Imports and exports benefit both parties.

 

As for plants, I think they're doing it themselves. Have you ever heard of asexual reproduction? The plant fertilizes itself, and since there are no other genes coming in, the offspring is an exact replica.

 

Actually, a clone isn't going to be an exact copy. Your genes do not, despite popular belief, control every aspect of your being-- not even your physical being.

I was taught that genes do in fact control every aspect of your physical being.

 

During development, your body forms by an interaction between your DNA and the environment that your fetus is in. During infancy, your brain develops differently depending on education and nutrition. Both heredity and environment shape every living thing. An identical twin isn't truly identical in every regard. A large, healthy cow, cloned, wouldn't really be very different from any other cow-- early nutrition is at least as important for size and health as genetics.

As an argument towards genes controlling every aspect of your physical being, would you agree that there are certain sets of twins that you cannot tell apart? Assuming things like same clothes and hair length is identical as well.

 

Here is where I kind of disagree with you. I havent really had enough education to know anything about genes interacting with your DNA, but stuff like education and nutrition are irrelevant. I think you're confusing study with natural intelligence. Humans are born more intelligent than others. For example, have you heard of the genius sperm bank? Its where people who are naturally good looking, athletic, and very intelligent donate sperm. I suppose this is going against nature a little bit.

 

A large healthy cow cloned, is different from another cow, its bigger. Did you know that only certain cows are used for breeding? Cows with desired traits are only chosen to breed, so their offspring will have the same desired traits. That is inarguable because its fact. If you cloned that cow, it would have more meat on it(desired trait) than another cow(because you chose the biggest) and perhaps its offspring(the other parent hasnt also got superior genes). So infact cloning cows would be effective but it would upset economies. Its the same as if you cloned a short person and a tall person. If height is the desirable trait, you're going to clone the tall person. If the cow is large and has a lot of meat, you're going to clone that cow.

 

I cannot really think of many examples for intelligence. If you want your child to succeed in school, well, I'd clone someone with a photographic memory. Whether thats considered intelligence is debatable, but education is irrelevant in clones. If one studies and one doesn't, does that make the studier more intelligent? If i know where I put something and my clone doesn't, does that make me more intelligent than him? Because I know something he doesnt? I suppose you can could it, potential.

 

In terms of physical traits, can you teach speed? No, you have to be born with it. Same with muscle size, some people can build muscle a lot easier than others. Its evident in the difference races, perhaps because of natural selection. For example, in the pacific islands or somewhere it is difficult to survive. Pacific islanders are often large people. Favored traits survive, so they are passed on. The weak die out.

 

The major benefit to cloning is the creation of perfectly matched donor organs-- a problem if we can't work out how to create just a heart or a liver, but need to create an entire living human being for the purpose. If we can, though, the health benefits could be considerable.

Yeah, I agree. And I think that is the only use of a clone. I dont see any other benefits of it. Even trying to increase the intelligence of the population. We would eliminate thousands of genes from the global gene pool. Average people like me wouldnt eventually be breeded out. So there is no other beneficial use that I can think of.

 

A person's resistance to disease is determined by by both your genes and life experiences (EX. some people are naturally prone to heart disease, yet getting the chicken pox grants you life-long immunity.)

Well I think life experiences dont come in to it. A clone who catches the flu and then gains immunity does immunity of the other clone, but since that clone survived, so will the other once he gets it and he will also gain immunity. They both have the same mechanisms and so you can say that have the same resistance. They both will not be affected by some diseases.

 

 

In the long run, we'd practically eliminate natural selection, and that could have some interesting side effects, but it could be perfect in ending world hunger, food shortages, illnesses caused by bad food sources, etc.

Yeah, thats right. For example, you're finished creating your perfect race of clones. They are all identical and equal. Suddenly we go into an ice age, every single one of them would die. If they didnt and the planet got extremely high, then they would die. There is an optimum temperature for all species, and natural selection has made it the temerature we live in now. So natural selection has no effect. That is only if every single person is the same. If one person differs then natural selection continues. To end all those things every one would have to be the same, and is there really such a person who is perfect and immune to everything? huamans are only around today because of diversity. I dont know much about the plagues, but i think there were some people who never got it and survived? Imagine if they were all the same, they would all be dead.

 

I bet no one will read my entire post...