"How so? Nature has given us intelligence, and so we use it."
It's artificially creating life, which is in my eyes a violation of nature.
"The world can support many more people, the problem lies in how those people use it's resources. I don't see how this is a case against cloning. Should we not allow people to make kids the regular way, because there are plenty to adopt?"
My point is that since the people who are already in existence don't know how to use the planet's resources, we don't need artificial ones on top of the already bad natural overpopulation.
"The technology is not just going to be used to create babies, it'll be used in many other areas to improve human life. And what does the third world have to do with anything? We all know the poor suffer, how's a ban on cloning going to help?"
My language was unclear here (my apologies) - at this stage, I was arguing against the cloning of organs to help the ravaged population of the third world. That's like using a band-aid to heal a severed limb - it doesn't address the actual problem.
"The resources put into cloning aren't going to hurt advances in new energy sources. Some genetic engineer isn't going to pack up and move onto windmills, if he gets the boot."
I see where you're coming from. You can't stop progress no matter what, but I think that more funding and effort should be given to researching new, unharmful energy than cloning (which I think should be very low on the priority list). Improve what we've already ruined before adding. I'm being idealistic...but not very realistic. I realize that, but I'd still like to see the focus shifted.
"Why will you be opposed to it? I mean your argument to date has been that earth doesn't need more people. However once we shape up, and meet your criteria, it should be okay then, correct? There must be some reason behind your decision, I mean you aren't just afraid of the unknown are you?"
No, it still won't be OK with me because I think creating artificial life is a violation of nature. However, as I stated just above, you can't stop progress, and I do see the benefits of creating organs...I just don't like it. Would I take an artificially grown limb if I happened to lose an arm? To be honest, I can't answer that - I'd have to be in that situation. But in no case would I ever endorse the cloning of an entire human being.
In my mind, cloning is not evolution because it's not a natural process. (By "natural process", I mean one that occurs without any interference by technology.) A clone is not a normal human being, because it is not conceived out of natural processes - it would be the result of synthesis. Life is imperfect by nature. And twins are NOT clones, technically. It's a natural process - see where I'm coming from? The creation process is where I draw the line. Yes, it's metaphysical, and no, it might not make complete logical sense, but neither does life. I also think that deformation and abnormalities are vital to the process of life itself - wipe those out, and natural life becomes that much closer to a simulation.
And I don't think that the complete eradication of disease would be such a good thing. In fact, I tend to think that if we wipe out cancer or heart disease, something else will "evolve" to take its place. Natural laws rely on organisms succumbing within a certain lifespan. Life is flawed for a reason, and we're all supposed to die. Cloning is an attempt at the impossible - perfect life. That very phrase is an oxymoron - it can't happen.
Robots and clones are the same in my eyes.
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Bookmarks