A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
August 15, 2005Nothing Wrong With Human CloningOnce the current technical problems that make human cloning unreliable and dangerous are solved, I think it should be allowed. Mind you, I'm talking here about full-sized-human cloning, not embryo cloning. The bottom line is that human cloning is just a new way of making identical twins, except probably more widely distributed in time. After long thought, and reading a bunch of clone-related fiction, I see no new societal problems that cloning per se will pose. The contentious issues WRT cloning, IMHO, aren't about cloning per se, but about the creation of a clone using already-existent but still new and poorly understood practices like sperm donorship and surrogate motherhood. But a clear trail of responsibility and parental assignment can be traced in both of these cases, which is the important consideration here. Clones won't be born in some kind of limbo, and once born, it's just another kid, just a little more chip-off-the-old-block-like than normal. Vain people may wish to make closer copies of themselves than is currently possible, but there are serious limits on how much they can succeed with a genetic mirror - nature may be duplicated, but it will be a kid from a different generation, with different ways of thinking, dressing, and probably even rebelliously inclined toward Dad. Does cloning threaten genetic diversity? I think not for a very long time. There are always plenty of non-vain people. And enough vain people that we'll just get lots of copies of different people. It's possible that we'll see slow convergence of lines toward successful genesets ("Dear, let's have us a Tiffany Rae 2! They're so elegant!"), but it seems unlikely to be a threat for centuries, giving plenty of time to pass appropriate legislation should it become a problem. Posted by Jon Kay at August 15, 2005 11:21 PMComments
Well, I suppose there can never be enough controversy. The one fact I want to call you on is that, from what I've heard, clones are not identical twins to their "originals." True, they have the same DNA, but from what I understand it recombines differetly(?). I am about as far away from doctor as you get, it's been years even since high school biology, where we spent a week or two on genetics. But even though I'm not sure I'm saying the right words in the right order, the idea is the same. The DNA will pair differently (or something) with a clone, whereas with identical twins, the DNA something or other is the exact same in both babies. Well, ok, I'm going to move on to the more political/philosophical issues. Like I said, not a doctor. The biggest moral dilema for me is not one of genetics, but of spirituality. It's really simple: do clones have souls? This question trancends any single religion, and I don't think it could ever be answered. Does that mean it justifies banning cloning? Well, it makes me uncomfortable, but I can't bring myself to say this one case should be any different. Morality makes poor grounds for legislation, IMO. So, if there are any geneticists around, please try to make sense of what I've said, and correct me if I've got the whole idea wrong. Posted by: Art at August 16, 2005 12:44 AMJon, what's you're position on the use of cloning as a vehicle for wealthy and powerful people to live forever? Suppose I'm a zillionaire, and I raise a crop of clones of myself with stunted brains, and then when I falter physically, I have my brain transplanted into the fresh new body with good joints and springy bones. And my doctor uses a combination of nanotechnology and undifferentiated stem cells to repair and revitalize my brain, slowly replacing all the bad cells through a regime of slow but continuous replacement of bad cells and misfiring neurons. And if medical science can reach this point, why won't my HMO pay for it? What's the rationale? Posted by: bk at August 16, 2005 08:37 AMIt's a slippery slope to organ farming. Well, maybe. One of the things that will make a clone different from the original organism, aside from the, in my mind, questionable proposition that the genes combine differently (I don't think so, but I'm not a doctor either, nor did I play one on television.), is the gestational environment. Were you to clone Michael Jordan, you would not likely get an athlete of his caliber because of the unknown hormonal (and other?) exposures he experienced in the womb. It may be possible to create conditions that would yield as good a potential athlete as possible given the genetics involved by, say, adding a bit of testosterone, but I'm not sure. Of course, none of this necessarily has any bearing on the ethical questions. I'll let someone else take a crack at that (and then criticize them). Posted by: WHQ at August 16, 2005 09:16 AMWEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! Down the slope we go. Posted by: c3 at August 16, 2005 02:03 PMI very much agree with this post. Cloning is a classic "Frankenstein" fear. A technological act that seems "wrong" but doesn't really have any far reaching problem. Recall that the original Frankenstein came from a time when medical science was learning a tremendous amount from dissecting dead bodies. (Yuck! There must be something bad that will come from all this cutting up of dead bodies! It's unnatural! I know -- someone will try and create a living person from a bunch of body parts!) All the dooms-day scenarios are just about as nutty. "What if someone tries to live forever using cloned bodies without brains?". Not going to happen. Cloning produces an identical twin tranlated in time. Except that the clone will be LESS identical because the birth environment is very different. They will then grow up to be MUCH LESS identical, because the environment they grow up in will be very different. If Micheal Jordan has a clone, rest assured he will not grow up to become an NBA star. (Know of any identical twin NBA stars?) Or if he did, then it would be as his own player. The biggest reason to not clone people at the moment is that it won't be safe. We need many years of animal testing and development before we go ahead with it. Posted by: Charlie Evett at August 16, 2005 04:13 PMWho would or would not be allowed to be cloned in this brave new world? I can't imagine that anyone would want to clone someone with Down's Syndrom, hemophilia or cystic fibrosis. But what about those with less debilitating genetic disorders, or carriers for genetic diseases who themselves don't suffer from them? Would congress have to write eugenics legislation for cloning? Where would the line be drawn between those who are acceptable candidates for cloning and those who are not? Would male-to-female ratios have to regulated? Could clones sue their creators for negligence if they found that they suffered from genetic disorders? How many clones could legally be created from a single individual? How many clones would it take to change a lightbulb? Posted by: WHQ at August 16, 2005 04:42 PMI very much agree with this post. Cloning is a classic "Frankenstein" fear.Let's just look at some basics. What would this world be like if we didn't have parents but were "produced". And why would the "production factory" make defective "products" therefore wouldn't we find ourselves "producing" only "good products". I find this VERY troubling. Posted by: c3 at August 16, 2005 07:59 PM The soul question is an interesting one. I don't believe in souls, so maybe I should keep my mouth shut, but, well this is a blog. It seems to me that if an identical twin gets a soul, then so should a clone. It'll be a normal kid born of a mommy just like any other kid. Now, if souls exist, how might that affect attempts to create human-level AIs? What would happen to them? I vaguely remember reading a James Blish book (A Case of Conscience?) that features aliens that lack souls. It was interesting reading. > Who would or would not be allowed to be cloned in this brave new world? Cloning will likely be a choice of whomever has the spare cash and motivation. Rather like IVF or surrogate mothers today. > What would this world be like if we didn't have parents but were "produced" Clones will have mommies and daddies, too. They're made by pregnant moms, just like other kids. > ... what's you're position on the use of cloning as a vehicle for Well, if you grow a new body with just the minimal nervous system to keep organs working, would it actually be evil to use for medical purposes? Would it be different, morally, than eating an animal for food? It'd really have to have virtually no CNS, of course, and be strictly regulated and inspected. That seems alot farther off of modern tech than safe cloning. I would think the real ethical issue is "What human gets to be the guinea pig when we try this for the first time?" At some point, there will be Human Clone #1 and despite any amount of animal testing and research, he/she will be an experiment with a human subject. Posted by: mr chippy at August 17, 2005 08:52 AMOh, and after seeing the Star Wars movies, if we decide to clone an army, let's get somebody who can shoot. Those stormtroopers were just pitiful! Well If we get to the point where people can create "spare bodies" to transplant themselves into when they are about to die what does that do to population levels? We're already crushing the planet and straining it's resources under the weight of our own numbers. It looks like population growth is flattening out in developed nations which is at least a somewhat positive sign. However what happens to that equation if a significant number of people can extend thier lifespan indefinately? Conversely, if it's only a few fabolously wealthy people who are able to afford such a practice making it a small enough percentage of the general population to not effect population levels significantly then it raises another issue. I think there are way too many problems that this type of cloning creates for society as a whole to want to go there. As far as reproductive cloning, the same issues don't exist but there are some other factors involved. Psychologicaly it can be tough enough for kids to establish thier own identity seperate from that of thier parents as it is. What kinda of additional pressures are placed on a kid who is geneticaly an exact duplicate of thier parent. I think it would be a pretty creepy parent that actualy wanted to create children who were exact duplicates of themself. Posted by: cengel at August 17, 2005 10:31 AMThis is a very broad statement, but I think the law of unintended consequences applies here in ways that we can't possibly imagine. I'm not necessarily against cloning, but our efforts thus far are mere masturbatory entertainment compared to worthwhile explorations of the ethical questions involved. Posted by: WHQ at August 17, 2005 04:40 PMRead Virginia Postrel on cloning. The Dynamists make a good point that fear would have blocked progress in the past, and could in the future. I think cloning is across the line, personally, but I get the point. When we are talking about stem cells, for instance, I think fear, blanketed in faith, is used to make public policy, and science or logic is ignored. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying morality on it's own is not, at times, a good reason to oppose something. Hence, I oppose cloning and abortion after the third month. Posted by: Mathew at August 18, 2005 11:25 AMThe main issue here is ethical. Would clones have full recognition of their rights as sentient human beings? And another thing: The 'slippery slope' argument is valid here because there is no earthly reason to manufacture humans otherwise. Very nice Posted by: Pesho at September 1, 2005 06:42 PMI'm asking myself: How can it be that I've never ran through your site before? It's a great one! port a buayar , Fantast author Posted by: John Reed at September 3, 2005 11:43 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
