Genetics going too far?

[Guest DrTom]

So explain to me how evil cloning is.

Where the hell did Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein come from? I wasn't even talking about cloning people in general, let alone terrorists.

 

I probably can't explain to you "how evil cloning is." I simply see a HUGE potential for abuse and problems, and I think that sufficiently outweighs the benefits. Messing with genetics is creepy and scary stuff, and I really can't see it leading to anything good. Genetic engineering isn't the way to bring kids into the world. There's a natural cycle to life, and by doing a lot of these things, we'd be greatly interfering with it.

 

This is more of a personal position than something I can shove facts in front of you to support. But I am *staunchly* opposed to cloning and genetic engineering, and I've never heard one argument that's swayed my opinion.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

This is more of a personal position than something I can shove facts in front of you to support. But I am *staunchly* opposed to cloning and genetic engineering, and I've never heard one argument that's swayed my opinion.

So then, shall I assume the reason for your opposition is founded in religion?

[Guest CED Ordonez]

*Looks three posts up* *realizes what folder he's in* Dammit, I miss Marney...

 

Anyway, my thoughts. I'm fine with stem cells and, to a degree, body parts and organs. When you get to the point of creating new and potentially dangerous organisms, that's where the line has to be drawn. I also don't like conception through cloning either, just for your information.Cloning is not an inherently evil thing, but some studies within the field shouldn't be studied.

[Guest red_file]

People have a lot of reasons for believing things are good or bad. Personally I'm anti-suffering/death. Any medical, technological, or social advancement that prevents either suffering or death is okay by me. If genetic engineering is going to prevent anyone of in the future from having to suffer from MS or cystic fibrosis or down syndrome or even a mild heart murmer, I don't see a problem with it.

 

I'm kinda against the clone army of industrial laborers thing as that pretty much insures suffering for the clone army. Advancements in robotics are proceeding as swiftly as cloning technology anyway, so mechanization of physical labor would probably be a more feasible alternative.

 

There's not a single technological or medical advancement that has not been abused once implimented. Cloning/genetic engineering would be no different. Knowledge that they will be abused, however, is not enough to disuage me from the possible benefits.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Cloning an industrial army of workers is basically slavery all over again, except it's even worse this time since we're building them to be nothing but laborers in conditions we're too good to work in.

 

Second, nature made us the way we are for a reason. Male and female of species mate, produce offspring. Nowhere in that natural order does a test tube come into being. That being said, I'll be more apt to list to something along the lines of gene therapy, but not simple creation of humans.

 

I've even made the point elsewhere that constructing organs for transplants isn't that big of a deal to me provided they're not growing human hosts to just die and donate organs. Actually, let me amend that. Just so longs as they're not really growing hosts. I've got a real problem with creating something to suffer or die.

 

As for our communist gimmick poster, I've got a question for you: say you elect a communist in the American government. Didn't that just disprove yourself?

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

Dr. Tom is actually an atheist, so his reasons lie elsewhere.

 

And wouldn't cloning be beneficial to a communist society? Clones = more people, which = more workers.

[Guest DrTom]

So then, shall I assume the reason for your opposition is founded in religion?

I'm an atheist, so please don't make that assumption.

 

My opposition is founded in the fact that I think this is something we don't need to be messing with. I see an incredible potential for abuse, and I think that overrides what good might come of it. I also think it's completely in opposition to the natural order of the world, which is a belief that doesn't come from any religious belief at all.

 

(Edit: I deleted all the silly socialism BS posts to help us stay on topic. That crap won't be tolerated anymore.)

[Guest red_file]

My opposition is founded in the fact that I think this is something we don't need to be messing with.  I see an incredible potential for abuse, and I think that overrides what good might come of it.  I also think it's completely in opposition to the natural order of the world, which is a belief that doesn't come from any religious belief at all.

On the first point we are diametrically opposed. I believe the potential for good overides the possibility of abuse. Ideological difference, I suppose.

 

On the second, though, I find the concept of natural order strange. We, humans, are already not following the natural order that was laid out for us; we are already not what nature intended us to be (if a concept such as nature is able to intentions and plans). Technology and civilization have made humanity into something that it wasn't previously -- extension and improvement of the quality of life, mixing of genes from populations all over the world, increase in intelligence, mutations through exposure to radiation. Now, we can argue whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I think it's a little late in the game to cry foul when we start doing things nature didn't intend.

 

Of course, one could say, "We've come this far and there's no reason to go any further." I can understand that to some degree. Yet, if we've improved ourself this much, why not a bit more?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I'm an atheist, so please don't make that assumption.

Allright then.

 

Well, I recognize your position, I can rather understand it, and I respect it although I may not fully agree with it. Just as long as you aren't going to go on with a bunch of Jeebus B.S. like I've seen some people do on this issue.

[Guest DrTom]

I believe the potential for good overides the possibility of abuse. Ideological difference, I suppose.

It is. I immediately suspect the worst of people, so that colors my perception right away. Also, our culture has become all about quick fixes and instant gratification. Combined, that's why I see the potential for abuse. And no matter how many people get new arms because of cloning, the very real possibility of cloning up a slave labor force or using the technology to undermine governments will always override the benefits, IMO.

 

We, humans, are already not following the natural order that was laid out for us; we are already not what nature intended us to be

It's hard to say Nature intended something for us. Technological advancements aren't the problem, though. All the things we've been able to do, we've never created human replicas in a laboratory before. You can say that things like test tube babies are just giving nature a helping hand, while cloning a person completely undermines the natural process.

 

(Edit: It sucks when you hit the "Add Reply" button too soon...)

[Guest HecateRose]

Only slightly off topic, but still an something that occured to me that the board might be interested in debating here . . .

 

Running with the possibilty that someone would try and create a cloned labor force (which is a reason I'm against cloning an entire human being) in the USA, we would have an interesting issue. Would these people be Americans, would they be allowed to vote/own a gun/procreate/anything that many of us may or may not take for granted? Could you just imagine the practically guarenteed conflict there? It would be bedlam.

[Guest Downhome]

Am I the only one who is totally against cloning on one hand, while on the other want it to happen very badly based on the "cool" factor? (I suppose that stems from my years of diving into film and sitting back and saying "damn, that would be awesome if it was real".)

 

Does that make me a bad person?

[Guest red_file]

And no matter how many people get new arms because of cloning, the very real possibility of cloning up a slave labor force or using the technology to undermine governments will always override the benefits, IMO.

 

Again, I question the feasibility of a cloned slave labor force. Cloned people wouldn't be very useful as a slave labor force until at least a decade after they've been "born" (always assuming of course that at that point we haven't yet mastered controlled accelerated growth; the rare genetic disorder progeria might offer a possiblity in that direction), which means that they'd need to be housed, taken care of, and educated to some degree in that first decade of their life, the cost of which would be quite hefty if the cloned labor force was significantly large. Also, unless they go the Brave New World route and turn the cloned labor force into gammas and dope them up, they will have to be carefully watched and guarded in case of rebellion, which means wherever they're working will have to be fenced off and guarded which will cost more money. And so on and so forth.

 

As said before, the advancements in robotics are moving along as fast as cloning and not have many ethical issues to slow it down, so I'd bet there's a better chance most manual labor jobs will become mechanized in the future. Jobs are being eliminated every year so that they can be handled by robots; there's no reason to believe that suddenly, when cloning becomes available, these machines will be replaced by clones that will require much more maintanence for much less productivity.

 

A clone army makes slightly more sense, and it's certainly something I can see happening in an oppressive third world country, but that too carries the problems of supporting the clones and making sure they don't turn against their masters. So, again, not exactly the easy ticket to creating a super army that skiffy movies portray.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "technology to undermine governments." Advanced chemical warfare? Cloning political leaders? Possibilities, but no more a threat (it seems to me) than someone parking a VW in front of the whitehouse with a nuclear weapon in the trunk. Need more info.

 

It's hard to say Nature intended something for us.

 

Impossible, I'd agrue. Which makes the statement "it's not natural" meaningless.

 

All the things we've been able to do, we've never created human replicas in a laboratory before. You can say that things like test tube babies are just giving nature a helping hand, while cloning a person completely undermines the natural process.

 

I take it you're against the artificial fertilization of human eggs with electricity then.

 

My question is: why cling to the "natural process"? Is there any reason why something should be valued only because it is "natural," or is this merely the type of reasoning that favors "because it's always been that way"?

[Guest EricMM]

I'm so glad I'm a beta. I'm not stupid and boorish like the Gammas, and I don't hurt my head thinking like the Alphas. I'm happy being me! Now gimme some Soma, and lead me to the group orgy!

 

What a brave new world, in which we live!

 

I seriously doubt things will go that far. We can't ethically create humans and enslave them. It's wrong! And human farms is pretty messed up too. I could see creating the parts themselves, but if we are creating a living being in order to harvest it, that's messed up.

[Guest red_file]

I seriously doubt things will go that far. We can't ethically create humans and enslave them. It's wrong!

When has moral ambiguity ever been a deterrant for progress?

 

Were those in charge able to make the public believe that the clones were not human (i.e. there were fundamental differences that would absolve the public of the guilt of enslaving their fellow man) then ethical objections wouldn't be raised. Other factors, mostly monetary, would be prohibitive, imo.

[Guest DrTom]

As said before, the advancements in robotics are moving along as fast as cloning and not have many ethical issues to slow it down, so I'd bet there's a better chance most manual labor jobs will become mechanized in the future.

I'd rather see that than a bunch of clones doing the work. Yes, a clone labor force in unfeasible right now, but as the science advances, it would become easier.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "technology to undermine governments."

Cloning leaders, basically. Again, something that couldn't be done right away, but would become easier as the technology advanced. The problem is, once you start down the road with cloning, you've opened the floodgates for all the potential abuses that could happen. Maybe I've watched and read too much sci-fi in my days, but as you said, when has moral abiguity ever been a deterrant for progress?

 

I take it you're against the artificial fertilization of human eggs with electricity then.

I haven't read enough about it to be able to tell you, really.

 

My question is: why cling to the "natural process"? Is there any reason why something should be valued only because it is "natural," or is this merely the type of reasoning that favors "because it's always been that way"?

To me, cloning and genetic engineering are trying to remove the imperfections that make us all human. Eventually, babies will be engineered without any birth defects or diseases. Is that a good thing? On one level, I suppose it is. On another level, we've gone in and engineered a baby's genes to better conform to the "norms" that have been determined, and the will of the parents. This creates a LOT of potential problems, probably as many as cloning does.

 

I think you don't have to do something just because you can. Cloning and genetic engineering are two examples of that.

[Guest BaldFish]

Doc--

 

I think it's utter bullshit to say that we shouldn't be curing diseases simply because they're genetic in nature. That's the sort of attitude that produces Christian Science--you know, the ones who refuse any medical treatment in favor of faith healing?

 

It also bothers me whenever ANYONE says, "I am morally opposed to this sort of science, therefore no one should be able to study it." Morality is very, very, very subjective, and I feel that science should NEVER be subject to individual morality--it is an objective field. Maybe it's just because I'm a computer/information scientist, but I feel that the pursuit of truth and knowledge shouldn't be impeded by the feelings of those who dislike a given field. It's a lot like how Creation Scientists have gone out of their way to stop funding to evolutionary researchers and remove evolution from the school systems. Why? It offends their sense of morality.

 

Besides, what are we really talking about here? We're talking about cures for diseases, yes. Yes, we're talking about possibly predetermining our childrens' genes--"I'd like my baby to be blond-haired and blue-eyed, please." Maybe further down the road, Kotzenjunge's raver descendents will be taking pills that will let them grow cat ears, cat eyes, and a tail for a few days.

 

And your argument against these things is "It's not natural". Well, neither is the automobile, the airplane, the concept of education, the idea of a grocery store, or a job. Society is founded on non-natural ideas and ways of life. And even the word "natural" is a cop-out--it implies that humans are something more than highly-evolved animals.

 

The other argument--the idea of cloning famous military/political leaders. Well, my buddy, guess what? There's more to a person than their genes--there's also the personality that is imprinted upon those genes by the society in which the individual lives. Let's assume we clone Osama bin Laden and put him up for adoption. We place him with a suburban home. Do you really think that when Ozzie Jr. is old enough to talk, he'll start spouting the virtues of Islam? Of course not! To get another Osama Bin Laden, you would need not only the genetic makeup, but also the same lifestyle Osama experienced as an infant, a toddler, an adolescent. To make another Hitler, you would have to expose him to radical anti-semitism at an impressionable age and then get him rejected from a predominantly-Jewish art school.

 

People make a huge fucking deal about genes. They determine a person's beginning characteristics--if I had the opportunity, I would have brilliant, beautiful children, and I would see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of making the next generation in our country a hundred times more intelligent and beautiful.

[Guest red_file]

I'd rather see that than a bunch of clones doing the work. Yes, a clone labor force in unfeasible right now, but as the science advances, it would become easier.

It would seem that as technology advances, there'd be less of a need for a clone labor force. That which would make the labor force feasible--mechanization of the birthing farms, training, and guarding--would also make such a force unnecessary.

 

Cloning leaders, basically.  Again, something that couldn't be done right away, but would become easier as the technology advanced.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about cloning for replacement. In that case, it'd be infinitely easier to merely take a mimic and give them plastic surgery to resemble the political leader. A few of the guys from SNL would make great replacements for our presidents over the years.

 

The problem with replacing political leaders is not so much the creating of a duplicate, as it is the actual replacing part. It's hard enough to sneak someone into a secure place with a gun to kill a person of political importance; damn near impossible to actually kidnap said political person and drop off a replacement without anyone suspecting a thing. Possible? Yes. But very unlikely. We've never even had a president taken hostage.

 

The problem is, once you start down the road with cloning, you've opened the floodgates for all the potential abuses that could happen.  Maybe I've watched and read too much sci-fi in my days, but as you said, when has moral abiguity ever been a deterrant for progress?

 

Ah, the slippery slope argument. Always an iffy technique.

 

The potential abuses are only limited by what is feasible. Many of the things I've seen in skiffy movies miss the point of cloning; cloning is often used as a plot point where other avenues would be cheaper and more effective. I've seen genetically tailored retroviruses that seek out and kill only members of a specific family/race/hair color. An interesting theory, but it would more than likely be easier to just use a regular bomb.

 

Bad things are going to happen regardless. People are going to be enslaved, murdered, tortured, and worse regardless of whether or not cloning and genetic engineering are fully explored. But the benefits--those good things that can ease a bit of suffering--can only happen if the science is allowed to grow.

 

To me, cloning and genetic engineering are trying to remove the imperfections that make us all human.

 

I don't believe it's the imperfections that make us human. The concept of humanity is a gestalt one; our bodies, culture, technology, even our history together make up the concept of humanity. And it's an ever evolving concept. The concept of what was essential to humanity five hundred years ago was not the same as it is today. A simple change in life expectancy, from forty to seventy, greatly changes how we ourselves. The removing of genetic defects will not make us less human; it will merely change the way we think of humanity.

 

Reading over that, I probably sound way too idealistic. I think that's where we stumble.

 

Eventually, babies will be engineered without any birth defects or diseases.  Is that a good thing?  On one level, I suppose it is.  On another level, we've gone in and engineered a baby's genes to better conform to the "norms" that have been determined, and the will of the parents.  This creates a LOT of potential problems, probably as many as cloning does.

 

The good that will come out of parents being able to pick their children's genes will probably be the elimination of racism. Traits from different races will be mixed together to form one race. It'll speed up a process that's currently going on.

 

I don't forsee any problems with parents choosing their children's genes. I mean, yes, I understand that some horrified by the concept, but I can't see why. Usually the reason is: "Because it's wrong." Or the idea that everyone will look the same, which we know is not possible.

 

I think you don't have to do something just because you can.

 

I agree. There's no reason to attach a human ear to the back of a rat. No reason to bombard a monkey with radiation and then cut it open to see what killed it. No reason to do a million different things we can that don't improve life one iota.

 

But something that can improve life? Something that will cease certain sufferings and possibly make us all better? I think you have to do that.

[Guest DrTom]

I think it's utter bullshit to say that we shouldn't be curing diseases simply because they're genetic in nature.

It's never been the diseases I've been arguing about. I don't want to see us cure anything by growing human body parts in some kind of organ farm.

 

That's the sort of attitude that produces Christian Science--you know, the ones who refuse any medical treatment in favor of faith healing?

Yes, I know who they are -- and I used to like you until you made that ridiculous comparison. There is a large difference between imbeciles who refuse medical care because a charlatan woman convinced them they should, and people who don't like the potential abuses intrinsic to cloning and genetic research.

 

It also bothers me whenever ANYONE says, "I am morally opposed to this sort of science, therefore no one should be able to study it."

I don't support it at all, but saying it shouldn't be studied wouldn't do any good, since science and progress inevitably march onward. What I don't want to see is the idea abused, which I think it inevitably will be. Unfortunately, there's no way to allow the research while preventing the future abuse.

 

It's a lot like how Creation Scientists have gone out of their way to stop funding to evolutionary researchers and remove evolution from the school systems.

You're a fan of the farcical comparisons, aren't you? First it's the Christian Science crowd, and now you're casting me in with a gibbering cretin like Rob Johnstone. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

 

We're talking about cures for diseases, yes.

We already have a lot of those that don't involve growing body parts somewhere.

 

Yes, we're talking about possibly predetermining our childrens' genes...

This is another potential problem. Something like this would have to be expensive, at least for a while. That means the rich will be able to have whatever children they want, free of defects, while the lower classes would be stuck casting bones in the genetic augury pool as always. Birth defects and syndromes present from birth would start to become more rare, at least among one class. What happens to the rest? What happens when funding for care facilities is cut because people can choose to have a perfect baby, if they can afford it? If you want to create class warfare, go right ahead, but I'm not going to sign up for that.

 

And your argument against these things is "It's not natural". Well, neither is the automobile, the airplane...

What I said was that using cloned body parts to treat diseases goes against the natural order. Cars, planes, and things like that are technology, artificial implements made by man to make certain tasks easier. Cloned body parts are living matter grown in a lab to treat an illness or extend life. The problem is, PEOPLE DIE, and I don't think growing body parts is an acceptable way to stave that off.

 

Well, my buddy, guess what? There's more to a person than their genes--there's also the personality that is imprinted upon those genes by the society in which the individual lives.

Right you are. However, to pull one over on the unwashed masses, you'd need little more than a lookalike who can sound like the person he's trying to imitate.

 

if I had the opportunity, I would have brilliant, beautiful children, and I would see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of making the next generation in our country a hundred times more intelligent and beautiful.

And I'm just wondering where all of that stops. Does it eventually become illegal to have imperfect genes? Are people with cloned parts discrimated against, or would they be the ones discrimating against those who still had their original limbs? Considering we've passed several freedom-squashing pieces of legislation since 9/11, I'm not going to put any measure like that past our government in the future.

 

Utopia doesn't exist, byt Dystopia certainly might.

[Guest DrTom]

It would seem that as technology advances, there'd be less of a need for a clone labor force.

Perhaps. Robots can't do everything, though. Of course, advancements in technology and robotics may reduce the need for any kind of labor force, but potential unemployment in the future isn't really what we're talking about here.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about cloning for replacement. In that case, it'd be infinitely easier to merely take a mimic and give them plastic surgery to resemble the political leader.

Hmm, probably, in some cases. A clone would obviously pass close visual scrutiny better, but either would probably work in fooling the unwashed masses.

 

The potential abuses are only limited by what is feasible. Many of the things I've seen in skiffy movies miss the point of cloning; cloning is often used as a plot point where other avenues would be cheaper and more effective.

Eventually, though, cloning will be cheap and effective. Look at how much PCs have come in the last twenty -- or even the last five -- years. If cloning a person costs, say, $10,000,000 when the technology is first perfected, it might cost $500,000 ten years later.

 

People are going to be enslaved, murdered, tortured, and worse regardless of whether or not cloning and genetic engineering are fully explored.

Of course. But I'm not comfortable with the idea of government-subsidized science giving people easy outlets and more excuses to do things like that.

 

But the benefits--those good things that can ease a bit of suffering--can only happen if the science is allowed to grow.

The problem with growth is that it's hard to control once it gets going. Science marches on, so stopping the research would be impossible, and I wouldn't want to do that, anyway. If we can somehow prevent the abuses I fear WILL happen, then I'd be much more positive on the whole idea. I really doubt we can, but it remains to be seen.

 

I don't believe it's the imperfections that make us human. The concept of humanity is a gestalt one; our bodies, culture, technology, even our history together make up the concept of humanity. And it's an ever evolving concept. The concept of what was essential to humanity five hundred years ago was not the same as it is today. A simple change in life expectancy, from forty to seventy, greatly changes how we ourselves. The removing of genetic defects will not make us less human; it will merely change the way we think of humanity.

 

Reading over that, I probably sound way too idealistic.

It does sound idealistic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. To borrow a quote from Bruce Springsteen: "The true challenge of adulthood is hanging onto your idealism after you lose your innocence." I think our flaws (genetic and otherwise), foibles, and struggles are intrinsic to our humanity. Our challenge is to make the the most perfect life we can for ourselves, despite the fact that we ourselves are imperfect. I guess that's idealistic, too.

 

The good that will come out of parents being able to pick their children's genes will probably be the elimination of racism.

I don't see how. How many White couples will choose to have a Black baby? Or an Asian one? Look at adoptions now, where it can be argued that people do have some choice in their children: how many White couples willingly adopt non-White children? How many Black parents will have non-Black children? At least in America, race has become so important to a person's cultural identity that I can't see parents making a different choice for their child. In other parts of the world, this might be different, but I still think like favors like.

 

But something that can improve life? Something that will cease certain sufferings and possibly make us all better? I think you have to do that.

I think you have to consider the risks and abuses, which will only become apparent as reseach continues and the technology becomes more accessible. Then you have to try and eliminate the abuses and minimize the risks. Possible? I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. We'll see.

[Guest red_file]

As said previously, we're standing on opposite sides of the fence on this one. An interesting, if cyclical, debate. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that I believe the potential benefits are worth any potential abuse; you believe potential abuses would be so horrific as to negate the potential benefits. An impasse.

 

Though, a final point of contention:

 

Of course. But I'm not comfortable with the idea of government-subsidized science giving people easy outlets and more excuses to do things like that.

 

I'm more comfortable having the government funnel money into research that has a potential upside than the some $30 billion spent annually on weapons research, which has no potential for helping people.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

How come no one has mentioned the fact that genetic tinkering has gone on for YEARS in agriculture? We've been eating genetically altered foodstuffs for quite a while now in our produce, not to mention the amounts of hormones and other chemicals that get pumped into our meat. So far, it's worked out great, and no one has tried genetically creating some kind of fast-reproducing algae to choke out a water supply or anything, so why couldn't human research go well?

 

Sure, people are quite often idiots, but most of them are responsible enough to realize when something truly powerful is in their hands. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a lot of the more pessimistic folk back in the 50's thought for sure we'd have nuked ourselves off the planet by this point...

[Guest evenflowDDT]

How come no one has mentioned the fact that genetic tinkering has gone on for YEARS in agriculture? We've been eating genetically altered foodstuffs for quite a while now in our produce, not to mention the amounts of hormones and other chemicals that get pumped into our meat.

This is actually one of the best points one could make in an argument like this. Perhaps it's because animals and plants are automatically inferior since they have no consciousness and are just going to be eaten anyway, but really, what's the difference between cloning a body to harvest organs and domesticating bigger/meatier cows to harvest meat? Why are clones so bad and seedless oranges so good?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Not to mention the fact that there is an extraordinary amount of money to be made in cloning research, whether it's for a bigger tenderloin or a spare liver. Look at how huge things like nuclear science, the internet, etc. got...I can guarantee that genetics and cloning, when better understood, are going to EXPLODE in the same fashion.