Human Cloning.

[BioMechanic]

But...the process DOES make all the difference, in regards to twins.

A cloned egg is the product of a techological, unnatural process. Despite the fact that it's carried by a mother and is produced via "natural birth", the egg is still artificial, hence, the end result is artificial.

You're right about the "no idea" argument, but I think it applies more heavily to the cloning process, and has the potential for far more severe repercussions than some other advancements.

[burgundy]

My point is that humans indistinguishable from clones occur naturally.

In-vitro fertilization is not natural. Is everything that is born as a result of in-vitro inherently unnatural?

While the risks involved with cloning might be far greater, the benefits might be too. Of course, for most, risk in itself is a bad thing, so I can see your point, somewhat.

[Captain Vegetable]

As with most business investments, higher risks yeild higher payoffs. The question is: Are those risks worth taking?

Just something to think about. I still haven't made up my mind one way or another.

[rezo]

CV, if you have a problem with extreme uses of genetic engeneering(maybe you don't think 4 arms would be more useful as that scientist), it only means you should simply not support that, and not cloning in general. I don't see whats wrong with cloning, but if clones were created to work in factories and be slaves, I would be against that.


And I'll say it again, we judge the result, not the process that leads to the result. If someone picked up a block of cheese, and created a human from it, it would be a human. Would the human be the result of sex? No, this man would be proof that sex isn't necessary for humans to exist. now change cheese to cloning. You can say the process is different, but that is the only difference.

[Captain Vegetable]

I never said I had a problem with cloning...or genetically engineering four-armed creatures.

What I did say is that I don't know where I stand on it.

It could be good...It could be bad. I honestly don't know, and God hasn't lead me one direction or the other concerning it.

Do I think it's neat? Sure! Do I think it's good? Don't know. Do I think it's bad? Don't know. But it's definitly neat!

[rezo]

I was just taking a cue from your "risks" statement. I wasn't sure if you were only questioning risky use of cloning, or if you considered cloning itself to be the risk.

[Captain Vegetable]

That would be "risky use of" my good man.

[burgundy]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
As with most business investments, higher risks yeild higher payoffs. The question is: Are those risks worth taking?

Just something to think about. I still haven't made up my mind one way or another.

Your analogy is a bit cloudy. The only reason high-risk business investments have higher (average) payouts is that investors require compensation for taking on risk. It's possible that cloning is both high-risk and low-return, although I'm not convinced it is.

[Stone]

What are the risks in cloning?

The invention of the atomic bomb carried huge risk alongside it:
+ win WWII, end the concept of World Wars forever, forced first-world detente
- apocalypse is now a lot easier to start

Cloning?
+ allow the creation of organ farms, breed diseases out of new first world children, save lives, so on. Outside of human cloning, similar research will help in developing GM foods to feed growing populations.
- Malthusian over-population hell becomes more of a possibility every time we do anything that extends the average human lifespan

I still think that minus won't have much of an effect for a long time - it's going to be damn hard to extend the benefits of cloning to the places where it could really have an overpopulating effect. Think about the common life-saving devices we had 70 years ago that are still rare in disadvantages areas of the world.

If we can keep positive GM foods research going, maybe we'll be able to counteract the effect of growing population, too.

[burgundy]

Stone: On the nuclear side, I think you're ignoring the benefits of controlled chain-reaction fission energy, which runs much cleaner than fossil fuel, though that also has its downsides.