Human Cloning.

[Green]

Doesn't evolution depend upon originality and mixtures and creativity? Wouldn't cloning of a human being be a backward path for evolution?

[Regus]

So, by your line of thought Ethugg, Caucasians and negros should be seperated and not allowed to breed, because its not natural for 2 different species of human to live in the same place without human intervention.

There is only one species of human on the earth, all the rest are now extinct.

[Rhydant]

Ethugg truely disturbs me.

it boggles my mind why anyone wouldnt want to make the world a better palce.

the only thing i can think of is that maybe you, ethugg, have a mental illness. im serious. whats so goddamn wrong with living?

[Space Pirate Roberts]

I'm going to make a point in a bit, but first some definitions.

From dictionary.com:

na·ture
n.

1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing.
------------------------------------------------------
in·tel·li·gence
n.

1.
a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
b. The faculty of thought and reason.
------------------------------------------------------
tech·nol·o·gy
n. pl. tech·nol·o·gies

1.
a. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
b. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
3. Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.

We human beings are animals. As such, we are products of nature. Nature created us and shapes us to this day, and as such we and everything we do are inseperably part of it, for all time. The very fact that man has the capacity to do a given thing defines that thing as natural.

Why do we even have such advanced technology to even be in a position to debate the morality of cloning? Because of our intelligence. No, I don't mean comparative intelligence, as in "Einstein was more intelligent than the average man," I mean the state of sentience which has made us the dominant species on this planet. We have technology because of intelligence, and we have intelligence because of evolution, an integral part of nature.

Further, speaking of nature in terms of the seventh through ninth defitions listed above, man has exhibited since his earliest days the tendency to devise tools and processes to enhance his ability to thrive in the world. In other words, it is man's nature to create technology, and because this tendency of man is a result of nature, so is whatever technology arises from this tendency.

So you see, there is really no such thing as "unnatural" or "artificial". Nature created man, therefore man is natural. Man created technology, and man is natural, therefore technology is natural.

Bear in mind I am by no means equating "natural" with "right" or "unnatural" with "wrong". Just because my logic defines nuclear weapons as natural doesn't mean they're a good thing.

Some random thoughts this thread spawned:
-It's highly ironic that someone with the screen name Bio Mechanic is so against any kind of research into the building blocks of life.
-I am more convinced than ever that Ethugg is someone's exceptionally retarded, long-overdue-to-be-put-to-rest idea of a joke. Your "real" identity wouldn't perchance be phoenixangelwing would it? I noticed you disappeared right when he left after his uncle died, then returned the same day he did. Coincidence...?

[burgundy]

LP: No IP similarity.

[BioMechanic]

(I swear, if my PC locks up one more time I'm going to shoot it)

"It's highly ironic that someone with the screen name Bio Mechanic is so against any kind of research into the building blocks of life."

Ah ha - someone caught on. It IS intentionally ironic, LP. I'm not against the medical field. Use technology to investigate life. Improve what's already here (we need to desperately). Just don't use it for cloning.

Invitro and cloning are totally different. Invitro is a technological way to produce a natural process. Cloning is all technological. I'm not against invitro to the same degree that I'm against cloning. A child produced by invitro is alive because it is, in the end, the result of a natural process, no matter how technologically assisted. It makes me uncomfortable, but I accept it. I don't think that makes be a bigot...

I don't agree for a second that technology is the result of nature, although I certainly see LordPerrin's point. I also think that definition is highly misleading, and far too unspecific. My definition of technology is different, obviously. However, I do think that most everything in the universe is a construct of some sort - even nature (hence my screen name). I still think that man can't hope to understand nature - he simply doesn't have the capacity - which in my mind means he shouldn't even attempt to artificially (sorry, but cloning is 100% artificial) produce/duplicate a natural process. Our technology will never be able to understand this. This means that clones are not natural, which means they're artificial, which means not only that they're not alive, but there's nothing to separate them from robots. Call clones replicants, simulants, whatever - just don't try to pretend they're human, because even if they're an exact copy, they're still a copy, therefore not an original, nor a the product of naturally occurring reproduction. Simply by definition, a clone would NEVER occur through natural evolution, so that means there's little to differentiate it from a microchip or toaster.

I don't see where the confusion lies. Metaphysical "soul" arguments and religious views aside (both of which support the anti-cloning argument, but I ignore them because you can't debate belief), I still see no evidence that:

a) Cloning is a natural process that is the equivalent of nature;
b) Cloning is true evolution
c) Clones are human

[2D4EVER]

We human beings are animals

Yep. But we're more like parasites or a virus. The worst thing that happened to this planet was the growth of human "intelligence". We fucked up this world with our "technology". One of the most advanced technologies monkeys or orangutans have is a stick that they shove into a termite hole to get the termites out. That's about as far as our technology should have advanced. We fucked up the natural progression of earth and every living thing on it.

Cloning? Eh. I wrote a 15 page term paper on that a while ago. Most of the information is probably void now but basically I said it would come to bite us in the ass in the future. With all the possibilities that cloning has...most of them are negative. Yeah you could heal people but you could also have the potential for clones to be slaves or work at factories for little to no pay, getting rid of the people who used to work there. Or these super-genius clones could decide to kill all the "idiot" people that caused all kinds of destruction and chaos and live in harmony in their super-genius world. Or nothing at all could happen and only positive things will come out of cloning. But what's the likelyhood of that? We're idiots.

Later all...

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by BioMechanic
Call clones replicants...

"Weak little creatures, speaking with gods.
Their cries are insane, their prayers are in vain,
For I am the replicant! To Hell with gods!"

[BioMechanic]

Cap'n - bwa ha ha. Good one.

To add to 2D's statement, we have NO IDEA what the result of cloning will be, 20-30-1000 years down the road. I realize that we shouldn't use fear as an excuse, but it's still another argument against cloning.

Humans cannot, and never will, completely understand nature. We simply won't last long enough as a race.

[burgundy]

Bio: I don't think clones can be disntinguished from identical twins. Obviously, the process is totally different, but I don't think it's wrong to say that a twin is simply a naturally occurring clone.

And generally, I don't buy the "in-vitro babies are human but clone's aren't" argument. Both occur as the result of natural processes kick-started by technological means. The cloning technique CNN presented merely begins with a cloned egg - nature takes its course from there.

The "no idea" argument would apply to any technological advancement, ever.