Human cloning

[spartan]

What do you think of potentially cloning human beings?

[mykittyhasaboner]

just curious is it possible to clone a human being as of now? if so i havent heard anything about so im wondering....

but in any case, i voted neither. if human cloning has potential for scientific and medical improvement, then im not opposed.

or if someone wants to clone themselves for the hell of it, hey why not?

[Mala Tha Testa]

but in any case, i voted neither. if human cloning has potential for scientific and medical improvement, then im not opposed.

or if someone wants to clone themselves for the hell of it, hey why not?

this.

[jake williams]

I see no major reason to oppose it. It's not especially useful though. Cloning is just human asexual reproduction. And it would have to be artificially done. Which I suppose is the main reason to oppose it, that I can think of off the top of my head - it's a waste of resources if people are just doing it for shits, and it can probably go wrong in the way that technology often does when it's used to do very complicated things we don't properly understand yet. But I see no major ideological reason to oppose it. The main thing is that it's useless.

[piet11111]

depends what sort of cloning is being used.

partial cloning of say organs for "spare parts" is perfectly ok with me but i do not see the benefit of cloning one person is going to have because its going to be someone else as they did not have the originals past experiences.

also its likely that the clone is going to be treated as "the clone of person X" instead of an individual him/herself and that alone is reason for me to oppose the cloning of a human being.

and then we could be bringing back extinct animals and i would support that completely (provided they still have an ecological niche where they can prosper in)

[Dust Bunnies]

I support cloning animals and other things like that but not cloning humans. When you clone humans you are opening up a can of worms. Also, hasn't anyone see Star Wars Episode 2: The Clone Wars? ;)

Clones may very well be used for slavery, to create a whole new type of sentient (the clones) just to be used for organ extraction or difficult jobs. I have to ask, is it good to create a sentient lifeform with real feelings and after the point of birth, real emotions only to kill it to save someone else? It is as bad as the bourgeois killing a prole just for his heart. Our revolution is not just freedom for us, it is freedom for any life form, whether they are a copy of us or some other lifeform. The clones may be referred to inferior as well. Now if you were to clone an individual organ then thats fine, but making a sentient lifeform just to steal its organs is not. If you gave the clone a well informed choice thats okay, but the entire process leaves room for exploitation.

[piet11111]

you do not clone a complete body for organ harvesting only the part you want.
think heart in a jar stuff made with your own cells so that you would not need immune system suppressants to prevent organ rejection.

i do not see any benefit to cloning a complete human as its going to be a completely different person then the original anyway and using them as slaves is disgusting as they are just as human as we are.

[maverick]

depends what sort of cloning is being used.

partial cloning of say organs for "spare parts" is perfectly ok with me but i do not see the benefit of cloning one person is going to have because its going to be someone else as they did not have the originals past experiences.

also its likely that the clone is going to be treated as "the clone of person X" instead of an individual him/herself and that alone is reason for me to oppose the cloning of a human being.

and then we could be bringing back extinct animals and i would support that completely (provided they still have an ecological niche where they can prosper in)


you do not clone a complete body for organ harvesting only the part you want.
think heart in a jar stuff made with your own cells so that you would not need immune system suppressants to prevent organ rejection.

i do not see any benefit to cloning a complete human as its going to be a completely different person then the original anyway and using them as slaves is disgusting as they are just as human as we are.

+1

[crimespotter]

I think it is a thing that will inevitable dawn upon us. But the intention is to be for the the betterment of humanity.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

humanity has a wonderful way of making life already why do we need copies of ourselfs in the biological sence are we that materalistic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All the alarmist nonsense over the ethics of cloning is based on so much bad sc-fi, which assumes that just because someone shares your genetic code they're somehow the same person as you are.

Wrong. The sum of a single human personality is more than the genetic hardware, so to speak. Life experiences, womb conditions, diet and a host of other factors will make even a genetically identical clone of oneself an entirely different person.

Bring on the clones, say I.

[piet11111]

All the alarmist nonsense over the ethics of cloning is based on so much bad sc-fi, which assumes that just because someone shares your genetic code they're somehow the same person as you are.

Wrong. The sum of a single human personality is more than the genetic hardware, so to speak. Life experiences, womb conditions, diet and a host of other factors will make even a genetically identical clone of oneself an entirely different person.

Bring on the clones, say I.

agreed but since the clone is not going to be the same person i do not see any reason why anyone would want to have a clone of themselves.
if it somehow would be the same person i could see how its useful like say to replace a dead child or something like that.

organ cloning or recreating extinct animals i understand the usefulness off but a complete clone of a human being i simply can not see a good reason for.

any ideas on why it would be useful ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

agreed but since the clone is not going to be the same person i do not see any reason why anyone would want to have a clone of themselves.
if it somehow would be the same person i could see how its useful like say to replace a dead child or something like that.

organ cloning or recreating extinct animals i understand the usefulness off but a complete clone of a human being i simply can not see a good reason for.

any ideas on why it would be useful ?

Why does cloning have to be "useful"? Who decides what is "useful"? Why should we take them at their word? Does cloning have to be "useful" in order to be allowed?

[piet11111]

Why does cloning have to be "useful"? Who decides what is "useful"? Why should we take them at their word? Does cloning have to be "useful" in order to be allowed?

i am ok with cloning i just do not understand why it would be useful to clone a person because its going to be someone else entirely anyway.

i suppose as an alternative to sexual reproduction it could be useful but where is the fun in that ?

[Red Anarchist of Love]

i said in the biological sence this excludes personality

[communard resolution]

It's all good.

[valientejv]

Cloning is wrong. If a person was to be clones they wouldn't have a family. They would probobly be sad and angry. Also the PETA people want to clone meat to stop the killing of animals. Eating cloned meat sounds disgusting. It would probobly have no flavor. Cloning body parts to help people is Ok though.

[Plagueround]

Cloning is wrong.

Why?


If a person was to be clones they wouldn't have a family.So long as a person isn't being cloned for research or slavery (which it appears most people here object to), why wouldn't they have a family? Family does not automatically mean blood relation as is...why not "adopt-a-clone"?


They would probobly be sad and angry. Only as sad and angry as the conditions they're raised around would make them. I highly doubt a cloned person would be more prone to anger simply because they're cloned.


Also the PETA people want to clone meat to stop the killing of animals.Might not be a bad idea. If done right it would certainly be more efficient.


Eating cloned meat sounds disgusting.I'm more inclined to be disgusted at slaughterhouse conditions and irresponsible factory farm practices than cloning. (And I eat meat by the way).


It would probobly have no flavor. On what basis exactly? Fear brought on by Soylent Green style sci-fi?


Cloning body parts to help people is Ok though.Indeed.

As it stands I think cloning is too simplistic for it to be a great scientific boon for society, but the potential it has could be promising and is nothing to be afraid of so long as it isn't abused. I'll only start fearing it once they start making Grand Armies of cloned bounty hunters.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't see full-body cloning as being useful either, but if people want to utilize the technology, go ahead.

[[email protected]]

i see that it is good for cmedical use but i don't think that cloning a whole human is sth good or useful .. we have enough humans .. what do u think ?

[mikelepore]

A perceived usefulness, I don't know how real the usefulness is -- parents whose baby or child dies may try to comfort themselves by deciding that they can recreate the "same" baby and start over, maybe make different decisions the next time to prevent the same outcome.

[spartan]

I am not against cloning but I am surprised that no one has brought up the possible overpopulation of the planet that cloning (of another full human being) could bring.

[Jazzratt]

I am not against cloning but I am surprised that no one has brought up the possible overpopulation of the planet that cloning (of another full human being) could bring.

No one's brought it up for the same reason they don't bring it up in discussions about sexual liberation - a child produced through cloning or traditional means is still an additional person on the planet. Even by the logic of overpopulation doom-merchants cloning people is no different to simply having sex with the aim of creating a child or being artificially inseminated.

[Dr Mindbender]

Cloning for harvesting of limbs, organs, blood etc. = good.

Cloning full human beings = bad.

[Jazzratt]

Cloning full human beings = bad.

That isn't a reasoned argument.

[Dr Mindbender]

That isn't a reasoned argument.

sorry i shouldve elaborated. Mainly for reasons of personal liberty and individuality.

How would you like it if there was a Jazzrat 1.2 walking round applying for credit cards under your identity?

Or robbing banks under your guise? I'd be pretty pissed off if i was the one that took the rap.

[mikelepore]

What's the source of these references to cloning to produce separate organs? The only cloning I've ever heard of was the insertion of new genetic material into a fertilized egg, followed by implantation into a uterus where development proceeds in the usual way.

[piet11111]

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0097.html?printable=1

well this is a page about cloning from ray kurzweil's page a well known scientists and transhumanist.

[Jazzratt]

How would you like it if there was a Jazzrat 1.2 walking round applying for credit cards under your identity?

They wouldn't get all that far, unless we're envisaging a world where credit cards and the like are applied for solely on genetic structure.


Or robbing banks under your guise?

I'd be, at least, 20 years older than him - even cops would be able to work out the difference between us.


I'd be pretty pissed off if i was the one that took the rap.

I'm not entirely sure you understand how cloning works...

[Demogorgon]

What exactly is the point in cloning full humans? That is to say, what is the point of replicating another person? It seems to be that it would most likely be used for things like replacing dead children and the life, something that would be monstrously unfair for the new child.

Things like cloning sheep and whatnot are obviously useful as it helps develop the technology which can be put to good use in other ways, such as partial cloning for body parts. But developing full human cloning is simply an end in of itself with no further benefit and very shaky moral foundations.

[mikelepore]

I don't take Ray Kurzweil very seriously. He's mainly an expert in one field, pattern recognition in computer software, such as voice recognition, etc. Now that he's famous he can make pronouncements about everything considered "futurism", including how soon we will have flying cars, etc. I recommend caution.

[piet11111]

I don't take Ray Kurzweil very seriously. He's mainly an expert in one field, pattern recognition in computer software, such as voice recognition, etc. Now that he's famous he can make pronouncements about everything considered "futurism", including how soon we will have flying cars, etc. I recommend caution.

still he is much better informed than most of us and is a very good starting point for further reading as he almost always cites sources.

his value in my eyes is by taking information from the science community and translating it from science lingo into something everyone can understand and by giving examples of how that specific scientific research can affect us in the near future.
obviously he does not have a crystal ball that predicts the future but he is still someone i pay attention too so that i do not have to spend hours everyday to keep up to date with the science news.

[MarxSchmarx]

What exactly is the point in cloning full humans? That is to say, what is the point of replicating another person? It seems to be that it would most likely be used for things like replacing dead children and the life, something that would be monstrously unfair for the new child... But developing full human cloning is simply an end in of itself with no further benefit and very shaky moral foundations.Well there are some justifiable uses of reproductive cloning, for example, if invitro fertilization fails for infertile couples. I don't have a problem with "playing god", and the line between therapeutic and reproductive cloning is grey.

In the future, we might be able to graft on human consciousness onto a clone of ourselves and live forever. How cool would that be? I think we could do experiments with like mice and see if they can remember things from their previous body, etc... ok this is a stretch but it isn't unthinkable.

Having said that, at this point cloning is largely pointless. We'd do it to say "we can, so there". Otherwise it is not the moral foundations, but the moral implications about the rights of the cloned and potential abuses, which are so troubling that I agree with Demogorgon's skepticism.

[Mecha_Shiva]

I agree with Demogorgon. People will start out with cloning replacements of their dead dogs or cats, and will eventually want to clone thier dead children. That is one of the reason I would against cloning whole beings. It would be horribly traumatizing for the child to realize when it becomes older that all it is is a replacement for a different child that had died.
Would the cloned baby get a different name? Would they get their own birth certificate? Can a clone get a birth certificate?
I do think it is a wonderful idea to clone organs, seeing as how many people die every year waiting on that organ list. If you could have doubles or triples of all you organs, you would never have to worry. And since it is essentially the same organ you had in the first place, you won't have to live the rest of your life taking immuno supressent drugs.
I dunno how I feel about cloning animals that are extinct though... Because I feel if the species died out, then natural selection meant for that to happen but I dunno?

But it would be fun to yell at a scientist or something "Haven't you ever seen Jurassic Park!!??" :laugh: :blushing:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What exactly is the point in cloning full humans? That is to say, what is the point of replicating another person?

Cloning someone is not the same as producing an exact copy ("replicating" them). As I explained in previous posts, they clone will share your genetics but will still be a different person.


It seems to be that it would most likely be used for things like replacing dead children and the life, something that would be monstrously unfair for the new child.

How so? How is that any different from having another child via normal means?


Otherwise it is not the moral foundations, but the moral implications about the rights of the cloned and potential abuses, which are so troubling that I agree with Demogorgon's skepticism.

Newsflash: There are no moral implications!

A person born through cloning is still a human being, and thus deserving of the rights that are commonly accorded to humans. They will not be an exact copy of the person, so they will not be able to do things like take credit cards in your name, etc.

The only real reason this is even an issue is because of the pernicious influence of irrational Judaeo-Christian morality and it's derivatives.


I agree with Demogorgon. People will start out with cloning replacements of their dead dogs or cats, and will eventually want to clone thier dead children. That is one of the reason I would against cloning whole beings. It would be horribly traumatizing for the child to realize when it becomes older that all it is is a replacement for a different child that had died.

Why would that be traumatising? The new child would never have met the old one, and surely the new child would be just as loved as the old?

My sister doesn't find it traumatising that my parents evidently decided that one child wasn't enough. So why should a child be upset that their parents loved their dead child so much they went so far as to clone them?


Would the cloned baby get a different name?

That's up to the parents.


Would they get their own birth certificate?

Yes, for the same reason that identical twins get seperate certificates.


Can a clone get a birth certificate?

Why not... One's humanity is not determined by one's means of birth.

[MarxSchmarx]

Newsflash: There are no moral implications!

A person born through cloning is still a human being, and thus deserving of the rights that are commonly accorded to humans. They will not be an exact copy of the person, so they will not be able to do things like take credit cards in your name, etc.

The only real reason this is even an issue is because of the pernicious influence of irrational Judaeo-Christian morality and it's derivatives.

Two points.

1. The assumption here is that cloning will be done entirely in the open. I think people, especially under capitalism, will find ways to circumvent whatever social mores and laws we set up. It is not a question of whether there will be abuse by some douchebag, for example, harvesting the clone's organs when his/her own organs fail and otherwise keeping the clone in a vat. It's a matter of how quickly such abuses will occur.

There was some crappy movie where a criminal gang made clones of those with access to state secrets and circumvent biometrics. I don't think this is beyond the realm of the possible. If human reproduction must be scrupulously documented and overseen by some ethical body, well, this doesn't strike me as particularly desirable.

2.
One of the biggest problems of cloning is that there is a social expectation that the clone is there to "substitute" for somebody else. Whether the clone is granted de jure or even de facto rights is irrelevant. People have children for all sorts of reasons, but a clone of oneself can only exist to satisfy one's selfish desire. I simply don't see how (much less why) anyone should love a clone for its own sake.

Consequently, this is a deeply instrumentalist view of human beings and we as leftists should categorically reject it. Sure people have children for all sorts of reasons, including instrumentalist ones (e.g., help on the farm, carry on the family name, etc...). It is not clear to me that the millions of orphans in this world aren't better served by being adopted than have cloning interfere with their chances at a family.

More problematically, such instrumentalist views of progeny, however, are fading from social consciousness. Having said that, the ONLY reason one can desire a clone is to have the clone serve some role. If this doesn't strike one as ethically problematic, I don't know what does.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Two points.

1. The assumption here is that cloning will be done entirely in the open. I think people, especially under capitalism, will find ways to circumvent whatever social mores and laws we set up. It is not a question of whether there will be abuse by some douchebag, for example, harvesting the clone's organs when his/her own organs fail and otherwise keeping the clone in a vat. It's a matter of how quickly such abuses will occur.

There was some crappy movie where a criminal gang made clones of those with access to state secrets and circumvent biometrics. I don't think this is beyond the realm of the possible. If human reproduction must be scrupulously documented and overseen by some ethical body, well, this doesn't strike me as particularly desirable.

It is possible, and much less resource-intensive, to simply clone the replacement organ in question.

No sensible security system is going to rely on biometrics alone, and even in the case of cloning, fidelity is not going to be 100% perfect. Even with the exact same genetic code, things like iris patterns, retinal blood vessel patterns and so on are not decided purely by genetics. Differing developmental conditions (and ensuring that a clone has the same developmental conditions as it's original is well-nigh impossible by the simple virtue of the fact that a clone is born differently from a natural human being) will mean that such things will be measurably different.

Why is scrupulous documentation and oversight of reproduction by cloning not a good thing?


2.
One of the biggest problems of cloning is that there is a social expectation that the clone is there to "substitute" for somebody else. Whether the clone is granted de jure or even de facto rights is irrelevant. People have children for all sorts of reasons, but a clone of oneself can only exist to satisfy one's selfish desire. I simply don't see how (much less why) anyone should love a clone for its own sake.

De facto existance of a clone's rights is anything but irrelevant. A clone would be biologically no different from any other human being and to pressure a clone into being the same as it's genetic forebear should be considered on the same level of those parents who try to "live through their kids" or otherwise force them into some preconcieved mould. There are lines that society draws as to how far a parent can go into influencing their child's life decisions. Why should the same not apply to clones?


Consequently, this is a deeply instrumentalist view of human beings and we as leftists should categorically reject it. Sure people have children for all sorts of reasons, including instrumentalist ones (e.g., help on the farm, carry on the family name, etc...). It is not clear to me that the millions of orphans in this world aren't better served by being adopted than have cloning interfere with their chances at a family.

Regardless of the reasons that people have children, and regardless of the method the parents used to produce that child (natural reproduction, IVF, cloning, whatever) there is a certain standard of behaviour that applies to parenting and that should be enforced no matter the provenance of the child.

I don't see what adoption has to do with this. Part of the problem with adoption is the completely asymmetrical standards applied to adoption vs normal childbirth. If I can find a woman who agrees to have children with me, then that's it as far as barriers to me having a child naturally go. Apart from a little bit of paperwork when the child is born (birth certificates and so forth), there is nowhere near the amount of hoops I have to jump through if I wanted to adopt. In fact, I most likely wouldn't be able to adopt at all. But if I can find a woman willing to concieve a child with me, then we'd even get help from the state, with no vetting of any kind whatsoever.

Regardless of whether this asymmetry is right or wrong, it cannot be denied that it exists, and that it greatly contributes to the miserable fact that orphans are denied families, as the bar for foster parents is typically set very high.


More problematically, such instrumentalist views of progeny, however, are fading from social consciousness. Having said that, the ONLY reason one can desire a clone is to have the clone serve some role. If this doesn't strike one as ethically problematic, I don't know what does.

You might see that as the only reason, but that does not necessarily mean that is so. Reproductive freedom should be about more than just whether a woman can get an abortion or not.

[MarxSchmarx]

It is possible, and much less resource-intensive, to simply clone the replacement organ in question.From a selfish perspective, this isn't necessarily the optimal choice. It might take years for an organ to develop to a point that it can be used given one's developmental stage, for example, a foot of sufficient size to support balance.

It may be more economical to keep a developing clone in a vat, any of whose organs could be harvested at will.


No sensible security system is going to rely on biometrics aloneWRT biometrics I don't think we know whether or not cloning can circumvent it. Thus, my point was that we should err on the side of caution. Indeed, if "they" somehow stole your documents, etc... but lacked the biometrics, this would almost certainly thwart them in the absence of cloning technologies.


Why is scrupulous documentation and oversight of reproduction by cloning not a good thing?
Mark my words. There will be errors and gaps and ommissions and things that pass under our notice. If someone had enough resources, they could readily use an "undocmented" clone to commit a crime, kill the clone, and frame the target.



Part of the problem with adoption is the completely asymmetrical standards applied to adoption vs normal childbirth. If I can find a woman who agrees to have children with me, then that's it as far as barriers to me having a child naturally go. Apart from a little bit of paperwork when the child is born (birth certificates and so forth), there is nowhere near the amount of hoops I have to jump through if I wanted to adopt. In fact, I most likely wouldn't be able to adopt at all. But if I can find a woman willing to concieve a child with me, then we'd even get help from the state, with no vetting of any kind whatsoever.
I agree. But if you think this asymmetry is bad under adoption, and that adoption paperwork is prohibitive, it would almost certainly be as bad under cloning. And you seem to suggest this is just as it should be. Which is fine, but then the question becomes "Why cloning" as opposed to these alternatives, including knocking up some random woman? And the only viable answer seems to be "because I can".



Regardless of whether this asymmetry is right or wrong, it cannot be denied that it exists, and that it greatly contributes to the miserable fact that orphans are denied families, as the bar for foster parents is typically set very high.Actually the sheer number of money-grubbing foster parents out there would suggest otherwise, but that's neither here nor there.

The only possible non-instrumentalist reason for having a clone is to "bring a child into this world" and raise it to be a successful human (as most healthy parents wish). It is not clear to me that cloning is (or will be) therefore any better than existing alternatives to child bearing in this regard. Again, given the potential for abuse (which admittedly exist in other forms of child-rearing, as in the case of money grubbing foster parents), why create more of a headache? And if you've got what it takes to be a good parent, what is wrong with any of the existing alternatives, esp. if you can, for example, provide a loving home to an orphan?


You might see that as the only reason, but that does not necessarily mean that is so. Reproductive freedom should be about more than just whether a woman can get an abortion or not.So what ARE some non-instrumentalist reasons to have a clone made for you, given that alternatives to "having a kid" abound.

[cop an Attitude]

as most, i see a benifit in cloning for the replication of organs. as for humans, we got enough of them already.

[cleef]

as most, i see a benifit in cloning for the replication of organs. as for humans, we got enough of them already.

yeh i agree with this

danger of replacing iconic figures?

[Dóchas]

whats the point? why would you want to clone another human being. imagine having two george bushs one is bad enough!!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

whats the point? why would you want to clone another human being. imagine having two george bushs one is bad enough!!!

Next time, please read the thread before you make points that have already been addressed and refuted.

[Decolonize The Left]

I am fairly indifferent on this issue. I certainly believe the cloning of individual organs/etc... to be highly beneficial and desirable. On the other hand, I simply don't understand why you'd want to clone a human being. Here are several issues/questions I have on this second issue:
- What are the evolutionary ramifications in regards to cloning human beings? Would this not greatly decrease the genetic diversity of our species? Is this not highly problematic?
- What, exactly, is the problem with having sex? Or with artificial insemination?

- August

[DesertShark]

There's a few important things that have been over looked so far in regards to cloning an entire individual:
-While the clone will be new (just born, if done through the injection of genetic material into an egg, the egg is implanted into a womb, and the fetus carried to term), it will have genetic material that is as old as the person that is cloned. So that means what ever problems the original person's body had, the clone will also have (ie. poor vision, poor hearing, etc.). In addition, you've just shaved off a large portion of the clone's life if you say clone someone at 30 because all the cells in the clone's body, start out at that age (the age of the donor). If you don't understand what I'm talking about, all the cells in your body have a life span that is partially determined by the "caps" placed on the ends of the genetic material. Every time a cell divides part of the cap is degraded (a few bases at each end). Once the caps are gone, the strand itself begins to get degraded during each cell division. This only poses a problem when it hits part of the genetic material that is coded for something important and most of the time it turns the cell into a cancer cell (an explanation for old people getting cancer).

-AugustWest makes an extremely important point with the effects cloning will have on our genetic diversity as a species. In general, the less genetic diversity that exists in a population, the less likely the population will be to survive diseases, severe environmental changes, etc. This why many people are attracted to or choose mates that are different and part of the reason why inbreeding is harmful.

-Then there's a lot of moral issues that have sort of been touched on...I don't want to get into them. Overpopulation is already a problem.

Cloning of organs can be very beneficial for people who need transplants, however, it may not be as beneficial as we all want to believe. Allow me to explain: if you take DNA from the person with the defect in need of the transplant, the organ that is grown will have the same genetic material and therefore (if the need for the organ is due to a genetic disease/illness) will have the same genetic problem as the original organ. If the person developed a non-genetic disease, for instance lung cancer from years of smoking; it may be possible to grow that person a healthy lung from their own DNA (only if they take material from a non-cancerous portion of the lung) because the DNA is undamaged.

-DesertShark

[gewehr_3]

I haven't read the entire thread, but i'm sure someone mentioned how unreliable cloning is. Its viable for organs and such, but not entire organisms, especially humans. Some biologists even doubt that its possible. I think we are experimenting with ideas like this and genetic modification WAY too much with our skill level. I was going to be a Biology major until I got disillusioned with it on exactly this subject. We may think we are a smart species, but we never look at the consequences of our actions until its too late. We need a few hundred more years of research before we do any significant cloning and GM that could affect our future.

[Revy]

I am against it, if you're referring to cloning people, not just organs.

I think that you might have a situation comparable to the plot of the film "The Island" - where the clones are deprived of their human rights even though they are equal people in all ways.

Are there any benefits to cloning people? No.

[Brother No. 1]

I only support the cloning of animals Cloning of humans is not me

[Jazzratt]

Genetically engineering cloned foetuses is one good way of guiding our own evolution.

[Mike666]

I don't have any problem with it intrinsically.

[DesertShark]

I only support the cloning of animals Cloning of humans is not me
Humans are animals...

[Brother No. 1]

true Humans are Animals

[Coggeh]

Are we talking bout human cloning itself as in cloning yourself ? or the medical side of it ? burn reconstruction ,organ construction etc .

Yes to the medical bit but cloning yourself(theoretically) is fucking stupid .

[piet11111]

Are we talking bout human cloning itself as in cloning yourself ? or the medical side of it ? burn reconstruction ,organ construction etc .

Yes to the medical bit but cloning yourself(theoretically) is fucking stupid .

both it seems.

[Comrade B]

I said I am against, but I am pretty on the fence for this one. As someone who lost several family members to cancer and has a family member fighting it right now I feel somewhat like we should be doing our most to find new ways of testing things to cure these diseases, however I oppose the idea of creating an identical full human being for fear that this human may be treated as something less than other humans.

I am also unsure of how I feel about growing organs and meat

[spartan]

I said I am against, but I am pretty on the fence for this one. As someone who lost several family members to cancer and has a family member fighting it right now I feel somewhat like we should be doing our most to find new ways of testing things to cure these diseases, however I oppose the idea of creating an identical full human being for fear that this human may be treated as something less than other humans.

I am also unsure of how I feel about growing organs and meat

There was actually a case in the news not so long ago where this guy suffering from cancer had a few of his non-cancerous cells (which are battling the cancerous cells in the immune system or something) taken out and had millions of them cloned.

The millions of cloned non-cancerous cells were then injected back into the person suffering from cancer and they promptly defeated the now outnumbered cancerous cells thus clearing his cancer!

[Knight of Cydonia]

have nothings against it. and if people can invented some greatest thing like cloning, it would be great for our science development.

[piet11111]

have nothings against it. and if people can invented some greatest thing like cloning, it would be great for our science development.

i am not sure what you are saying but i think you want to clone scientists right ?

just because you clone a hawking or Einstein it doesn't mean you will have someone just like the famous scientists because they where formed by their upbringing and many years of intense study.
because of those outside factors their brains where formed in such a way as to allow them to think differently then a normal person would. (yes the brain is able to make neural pathways to give more "power" to the parts that are intensively used)

[Killfacer]

Haven't you seen "the 6th day" with Arnie? Christ you would have voted against human cloning if you had. It's a haunting and frankly frightening look at modern science.

[piet11111]

Haven't you seen "the 6th day" with Arnie? Christ you would have voted against human cloning if you had. It's a haunting and frankly frightening look at modern science.

it has been said before that there is a reason science fiction has fiction attached at the end :glare:

if everything works as it should those movies/books/comics would be incredibly boring so they make stuff up and that does not mean those bad things would happen.
if anything the doom and gloom of those movies serve as a warning so that technology will be used more responsibly.

[Comrade B]

There was actually a case in the news not so long ago where this guy suffering from cancer had a few of his non-cancerous cells (which are battling the cancerous cells in the immune system or something) taken out and had millions of them cloned.

The millions of cloned non-cancerous cells were then injected back into the person suffering from cancer and they promptly defeated the now outnumbered cancerous cells thus clearing his cancer!
Wow, that is pretty stunning, what form of cancer did he have? Lung cancer, a tumor and Leukemia have been my family's problems

[spartan]

Wow, that is pretty stunning, what form of cancer did he have? Lung cancer, a tumor and Leukemia have been my family's problems

Sorry B but I can't remember.

I am sure that the cancer was terminal and would have led to his death had he not started this new treatment.

[Dean]

Answering a question like this is not simple. If you look at cloning in regards to its most basic parts, its not really bad at all. The creation of human life is a (partially) deliberate faculty of the human being. The only fundamental difference is that the resulting genetic code and method of creation are not traditional.

But, if we are to understand it in the accurate social context, there is probably no real justification for its furtherance. We have to understand a number of problems based on the notion that the individual human deserves dignity, self-respect, autonomy and equality with others.

Firstly, there is the issue of intent for creation. There is of course the notion of profit to contend with - as usual, since this is a communist message board, I'll leave that one out. We assume that a revolution is already in motion. But other potential reasons for cloning - the creation of "supermen" for instance, are dangerous, fascist notions.

Genetic determinism is another problem here. As it stands, human beings are basically limited by their genetic and biological existance. The notion that a human genetic code could be cherry - picked or copied by society is dangerous; it ultimately means that new controls on the human being are being created; controls which can only be operated by other human beings. What purpose would they have for such power? Is a situation where such extreme power over others has been given to some acceptable at all?

As others have mentioned, the social consequences for a clone are extreme. Existing as a clone of another human carries a lot of psychological and social consequences which we have no real way of measuring at this point. Such an identity crises would certainly cause problems, and even playing with one person's life in such a manner isn't a risk we should take.

Lastly, there is the issue of stigma. I simply can't fathom a situation where such cloning doesn't result in notoriety or repeated medical / scientific evaluation, and it just isn't the place of some humans to decide for others that they will be put through such experiences.


I am assuming that the total human being is being cloned here - particularly the brain. I am not opposed to the cloning of other body parts, and perhaps not of portions of the brain. I feel similarly about the cloning of animals, but if meat can be cloned in absence of a central cortex, that is certainly preferable to the barbarism that exists today in the meat industry.

[piet11111]

diabetes runs in my family would it be genetic determinism if i where to alter the genetics of my children to remove their pre-disposition to diabetes ?

or would i be a facist if i went ahead and just had all such genetic flaws removed (like poor eyesight that also runs in the family)

besides my decision to have a kid would be the ultimate form of control over them so should we just castrate all of humanity so that we do not force any kids to be born against their will ?

yes being in the position where i can eliminate any such genetic problems is a position of power over the unborn child but not giving them those benefits is to me inexcusable and forcing them to grow up with something that could so easily have been corrected.

[hugsandmarxism]

You opponents of cloning are just afraid of this:

http://services.yummy.net/img/hitman2/hitman2_large.jpg

Cloned super-assassins, attack! :p

On a serious note, stamping out genetic diseases and growing organs in petrie dishes seems to be a no-brainer for me...

[Primus_Raven]

diabetes runs in my family would it be genetic determinism if i where to alter the genetics of my children to remove their pre-disposition to diabetes ?

or would i be a facist if i went ahead and just had all such genetic flaws removed (like poor eyesight that also runs in the family)

besides my decision to have a kid would be the ultimate form of control over them so should we just castrate all of humanity so that we do not force any kids to be born against their will ?

yes being in the position where i can eliminate any such genetic problems is a position of power over the unborn child but not giving them those benefits is to me inexcusable and forcing them to grow up with something that could so easily have been corrected.

Agreed. My family also has a history of diabetes, along with a laundry list of other health problems. I know if given the ability to ensure my children would not have to suffer from said illnesses I would use it.

[piet11111]

On a serious note, stamping out genetic diseases and growing organs in petrie dishes seems to be a no-brainer for me...

at least it should be a no brainer but of course there are always those that oppose progress out of irrational fears or perhaps some religious sentiments.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But, if we are to understand it in the accurate social context, there is probably no real justification for its furtherance. We have to understand a number of problems based on the notion that the individual human deserves dignity, self-respect, autonomy and equality with others.

Firstly, there is the issue of intent for creation. There is of course the notion of profit to contend with - as usual, since this is a communist message board, I'll leave that one out. We assume that a revolution is already in motion. But other potential reasons for cloning - the creation of "supermen" for instance, are dangerous, fascist notions.

I'm surprised I didn't spot this little gem earlier.

Equality is not about hobbling the potential of the human species - it is about allowing every human being born an equal chance to realise their potential.

Genetic engineering and cloning give us the possiblity of maximising that potential for the good of all - and that includes creating superhumans. Your cries of "Fascism" are simply politically-acceptable ways of cloaking your innate bioconservatism.

[S.O.I]

id would like a clone of myself. but then again im an immoral crazy asshole and i propably wouldnt like myself very much, and he/i would propably become my worst enemy and try to kill me. so i should vote 2, but i voted 3.

and imagine having 3 adolf hitlers, or george bush'es. this would inevidably become an upper class luxury.

[Killfacer]

id would like a clone of myself. but then again im an immoral crazy asshole and i propably wouldnt like myself very much, and he/i would propably become my worst enemy and try to kill me. so i should vote 2, but i voted 3.

and imagine having 3 adolf hitlers, or george bush'es. this would inevidably become an upper class luxury.

Hitler wasn't like a super man who could shoot lasers out of his eyes. Having more than 1 hitler would just mean you got to kill him 3 times.

[S.O.I]

Hitler wasn't like a super man who could shoot lasers out of his eyes. Having more than 1 hitler would just mean you got to kill him 3 times.

brilliant plan. you really nailed the discussion on cloning right there :lol:

so i guess you have the ninja skills, and technology to inflitrate top secret military cloning facilities, owned by government corporations half way to global domination with the means of getting DNA samples of adolf hitler and gw bush?? :confused::lol: i wonder why you havent already overthrown capitalism on your own already... you just have to kill a couple world leaders, no problem!

[ev]

This is amazingly interesting, there could be a whole different thread tackling biologically engineered clones that would differ from ourselves (have better eyesight, muscles, etc.) It's amazing the applications of such technology.

May I add to the OP's question, If you could engineer a genetic copy of yourself, what would you change?

I mean, technically one could even change their own sexuality via genetic modifications, one could probably change their sexual preferences as well. I'd imagine that there would have to be some kind of regulation on such technology. Still.. Amazing.

What if one could clone a full-sized human (with memory and all) - that would even be more insane, one could technically take what would be required to clone someone, kill the original person then genetically modify the persons clone (and I'd assume even memory as it would have to be transferred somehow) I'm no scientist but speculating on the possibilities of technology in this area is rather exciting..

[Killfacer]

brilliant plan. you really nailed the discussion on cloning right there :lol:

so i guess you have the ninja skills, and technology to inflitrate top secret military cloning facilities, owned by government corporations half way to global domination with the means of getting DNA samples of adolf hitler and gw bush?? :confused::lol: i wonder why you havent already overthrown capitalism on your own already... you just have to kill a couple world leaders, no problem!

:confused:

[Coggeh]

I'm fascinated by genetic engineering , I have no idea if i'm for or against .


Equality is not about hobbling the potential of the human species - it is about allowing every human being born an equal chance to realise their potential.
Makes logical sense to me .

But i do think were in way over our heads on this on to even contemplate what your talking about .

By current technology we cannot do it for one , and if we could people with genetically engineered genes or altered genes if they "interbreed" with other "organic" humans(sorry for the insensitive wording) could (possibily) have serious effects with offspring e.g gene mutation .

However science and techonology do advance and when its safe i would fully back it.Morals and ethics go out the window when your talking about giving people an equal chance at life from the start .Though i think this cannot be used to make humans "bigger and better" but only to eliminate genetic dieseases etc .

For now i think lets just leave natural selection take its course .

[Revolutionary Youth]

I used to be really excited when hearing that we're going to have a baby human clone. But after I watched the anime "Elfen Lied", I feel so sad about the fate of these "artificial human beings". It is a sad, bloody romance~:(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwHqMXhuBeI

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Makes logical sense to me .

But i do think were in way over our heads on this on to even contemplate what your talking about .

By current technology we cannot do it for one , and if we could people with genetically engineered genes or altered genes if they "interbreed" with other "organic" humans(sorry for the insensitive wording) could (possibily) have serious effects with offspring e.g gene mutation .

That's why you have pre-natal screening to check for any abnormalities that would negatively impact quality of life, provided gratis by the community.


However science and techonology do advance and when its safe i would fully back it.Morals and ethics go out the window when your talking about giving people an equal chance at life from the start .Though i think this cannot be used to make humans "bigger and better" but only to eliminate genetic dieseases etc .

For now i think lets just leave natural selection take its course . Natural selection is what leads to things sickle cell disease, anaemia, vulnerability to various cancers and other illnesses, and other conditions that have a negligable effect on the survival of the species as a whole but make the lives of individuals a living hell, or give them a slow and painful death.

And why not produce smarter, stronger humans? Aside from the immediate positive impact of having enhanced humans on hand to contribute to society, their positive traits will be disseminated (through reproduction) amongst the population at large, improving the general human stock.


I used to be really excited when hearing that we're going to have a baby human clone. But after I watched the anime "Elfen Lied", I feel so sad about the fate of these "artificial human beings". It is a sad, bloody romance~:(

If scientists in in real life were as stupid as their fictional counterparts, we'd all be dead due to being overrun by superintelligent radioactive nuclear-powered bionanotechnological virus swarms that were treated like shit for no good reason at all.

Thankfully, that's not the case.

[hugsandmarxism]

I used to be really excited when hearing that we're going to have a baby human clone. But after I watched the anime "Elfen Lied", I feel so sad about the fate of these "artificial human beings". It is a sad, bloody romance~:(
BwHqMXhuBeI

Yeah, I have the box-set of this gory disaster piece. The only thing more depressing than Elfen Lied is Saikano, which should be avoided at all costs.

[Revolutionary Youth]

The only thing more depressing than Elfen Lied is Saikano, which should be avoided at all costs.
Why should it be avoided at all cost? What's the story then?

[hugsandmarxism]

Why should it be avoided at all cost? What's the story then?

Just trust me on this. It's brilliantly done, but it assaults the human heart and crushes any happiness you may feel. I wish I hadn't watched it.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Just trust me on this. It's brilliantly done, but it assaults the human heart and crushes any happiness you may feel. I wish I hadn't watched it.
Cool, then it urges me to watch it even more! I myself really like depressing things.
By the way, have you watched Koihime Musou?

[hugsandmarxism]

Knock yourself out: http://zone-anime.com/anime/saikano.html

And no.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Knock yourself out: http://zone-anime.com/anime/saikano.html

Wow, that is one major freaking good anime website! Thanks!
ありがとうございます！:D

[hugsandmarxism]

Wow, that is one major freaking good anime website! Thanks!
ありがとうございます！:D

You're welcome. And don't say I didn't warn you about Saikano.

[Das war einmal]

For duplication of organs its good, but I see absolutely no reason to replicate humans or animals...

[Jazzratt]

For duplication of organs its good, but I see absolutely no reason to replicate humans or animals...


Pandas are dying out because they refuse to fuck each other. If one wanted to keep Pandas about (for example) cloning could help - at least a more advanced form of cloning could.

[piet11111]

Pandas are dying out because they refuse to fuck each other. If one wanted to keep Pandas about (for example) cloning could help - at least a more advanced form of cloning could.

IVF would be a better option for the genetic diversity.

[Jazzratt]

IVF would be a better option for the genetic diversity.


You raise a good point.


Cloning animals for vivisection, then, could be another avenue to consider.

[piet11111]

You raise a good point.


Cloning animals for vivisection, then, could be another avenue to consider.

exactly or cloning of superior cattle so that the clones can be distributed to country's that are struggling to get good results.

for instance an uncle of mine was a farmer that bred his own cows based on superior milk production and he got incredible results in the end but essentially the cows he used where being bred for milk for many generations already so he had very good source material available to him.
a farmer in one of the more shittier country's in africa simply does not have the means to do the same so a cloned "super"-cow from the western country's would save him many decades of work.

[Revy]

it has been said before that there is a reason science fiction has fiction attached at the end :glare:

if everything works as it should those movies/books/comics would be incredibly boring so they make stuff up and that does not mean those bad things would happen.
if anything the doom and gloom of those movies serve as a warning so that technology will be used more responsibly.

I don't understand this pompous hatred toward science fiction.
Science fiction can teach moral lessons and ring true about potential problems. We're not dealing with something like the past, but the future. It is perfectly realistic to think that human cloning could be operated by corrupt elements who intend to use the clones in a way that deprives them of their intrinsic humanity.

[alhop10]

Wouldn't the main problem be the gene pool? If we are cloning people instead of reproducing properly then we are limiting the genetic diversity of the population, the very thing that makes us all different and able to have sex with each other without producing babies with nine arms etc. I really can't think of any practical use for it that wouldn't bring up serious ethical questions.

[piet11111]

I don't understand this pompous hatred toward science fiction.
Science fiction can teach moral lessons and ring true about potential problems. We're not dealing with something like the past, but the future. It is perfectly realistic to think that human cloning could be operated by corrupt elements who intend to use the clones in a way that deprives them of their intrinsic humanity.

i do not hate science fiction i love that stuff ( its one of the few movie genre's that are not dominated by shitty movies) it just pisses me off when people are saying they are for example against robotics and start citing the terminator movies as if that is a good reason to be against it :cursing:
or arguing against transhumanism and then bringing up Gattaca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

funny enough i am yet to see someone arguing against space exploration and then bringing up the Aliens movies.


I really can't think of any practical use for it that wouldn't bring up serious ethical questions.

cloning organs using the recipients own DNA so as to avoid the body rejecting the transplant ?
bringing back extinct animals ?
creating more cattle with desirable traits like better milk production for the poor country's ?

and then there are probably several more reasons that currently escape me.
besides how does ethics play into this ? afraid we are playing god or something *gasps* :ohmy:
the only ethical objection i can think of is cloning complete people and treating them as lesser people because they are clones.

[an apple]

For duplication of organs its good, but I see absolutely no reason to replicate humans or animals...

I agree with resistance here.

There is no good reason to be doing such a thing. It's also a moral dilemna, as to me it seems wrong to manipulate what humanity was created with.

[Picky Bugger]

It's also a moral dilemna, as to me it seems wrong to manipulate what humanity was created with.

Could you strengthen your argument here? what exactly do you mean by "manipulate what humanity was created with?" I see no issue with cloning as long as it has a particular beneficial purpose.

[Intifadah]

clone the lotta them

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I voted against because personally I think its pointless and a waste of money

[Picky Bugger]

Good to see that you've thought out the issue thoroughly... :blink:

[Jazzratt]

Good to see that you've thought out the issue thoroughly... :blink:

Welcome to the RevLeft Science & Environment forum where thinking things through or explaining your viewpoint is bourgeois decadence.

[piet11111]

Welcome to the RevLeft Science & Environment forum where thinking things through or explaining your viewpoint is bourgeois decadence.

or downright reactionary.

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

I think it could be good.You should be able to order models or celebs you like :lol: Seriously tho it could be good if you have had someone you love die then you could get them back

[Manifesto]

What if cloning turned into something like in House of the Scorpion?

[Jazzratt]

What if cloning turned into something like in House of the Scorpion?

Then everyone had better watch/read House of the Scorpion in preperation. Then again we could always think of cloning in a much more level headed way than simply turning to whatever peice of sensationalist fiction happens to be closest to hand.

In other words, show me how things could turn into something like this House of the Scorpion bollocks or piss off.

[Manifesto]

Then everyone had better watch/read House of the Scorpion in preperation. Then again we could always think of cloning in a much more level headed way than simply turning to whatever peice of sensationalist fiction happens to be closest to hand.

In other words, show me how things could turn into something like this House of the Scorpion bollocks or piss off.
Cloning could be used in order to harvest organs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Cloning could be used in order to harvest organs.

It would be much easier and less resource intensive to just grow the required organs on scaffolds using stem cells (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=95145&highlight=stem+cells).

[Agrippa]

Fuck cloning.

[Manifesto]

It would be much easier and less resource intensive to just grow the required organs on scaffolds using stem cells (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=95145&highlight=stem+cells).
Cool stem cells have gotten a lot farther now. And even using ones from a grown person but, would they be able to do that an someone who is old?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Cool stem cells have gotten a lot farther now. And even using ones from a grown person but, would they be able to do that an someone who is old?

I don't see why not. The ability to produce new cells merely decreases with age, it doesn't suddenly disappear entirely.


Fuck cloning.

Fuck woodwork. Because that makes just as much sense as what you said. :rolleyes:

[Agrippa]

Fuck woodwork. Because that makes just as much sense as what you said. :rolleyes:

No. It doesn't. Woodwork is not an ecologically unsustainable method of producing unhealthy, illness-prone parodies of organic life developed as a class-weapon and tool of commodity-monopolization by the bourgeoisie.

The only self-proclaimed anarchists that support are the technocratic fringe, which is fortunately a minority, but unfortunately a persistent one. Genuine anarchists recognize cloning as not merely a "technological innovation" that exists in a class-vacuum but a social project that would only be sought after in a society with capitalist class-relations

The idea that cloning can be used to heal or cure anything in the long-term is, of course, a lie, but the technocratic faction of RevLeft has made an occupation of parroting capitalist media lies about the alleged benefits of capitalist ecological/health hazards such as GMOs, nanotechnology, AI etc.

If in the near future, capitalism is stable enough to start churning out a large popultion of clones, I will not discriminate against them. Rather, I will recognize them as unique victims of capitalist oppression as their shoddily-created bodies start to decay more quickly than mine.

[Technocrat]

Care to support any of your claims with evidence?

Also, not all Technocrats support those things (it is a subjective question), so stop trying to make that a point of yours.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No. It doesn't. Woodwork is not an ecologically unsustainable method of producing unhealthy, illness-prone parodies of organic life developed as a class-weapon and tool of commodity-monopolization by the bourgeoisie.

Shouldn't you be criticising the use to which it is put, rather than the technology itself? After all, not all uses of woodwork are benign, such as construction of gallows to hang innocent people.

[fiddlesticks]

cloning..tough question. I think it could have its good uses, such as ensuring the acceptance of organs and (when cloning animals) for food since we will without a doubt not be able to feed everyone in the world naturally. we cant now and wont in the future. But I wonder..if it would end up like the island and human beings with memories and thoughts and opinions are going to be lied to and kept hidden from the world..thats teasing them with existence. SO my answer, I guess, I dont think human cloning should be done. If it does, it would probably get way out of hand. It would end up with a higher world population, and thats not neccesarily a good thing..

[Agrippa]

Shouldn't you be criticising the use to which it is put, rather than the technology itself? After all, not all uses of woodwork are benign, such as construction of gallows to hang innocent people.

The difference, however, and it's an important one, is that there is no way to clone without constructing gallows. This simply isn't true of woodworking. There's also no way, for instance, to use nuclear power without constructing gallows. Technocrats on the one hand and people like John Zerzan on the other have totally mis-framed the debate. It's not an issue of "technology", it's an issue of designing things that are not socially beneficial.

[Axle]

I support human cloning for medical purposes...i.e. mass cloning of individual organs to provide quicker and safer transplants.

Full-body cloning has no use outside of science-fiction. I can't see people cloning their bodies so they can live forever ever becoming an application.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The difference, however, and it's an important one, is that there is no way to clone without constructing gallows.

You mean the fact that clones have shorter lifespans, right? Well, I've read that the reason clones don't live as long as naturally produced organisms is due to their chromosomes having shorter telomeres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere). I think if cloning is to be a viable method of producing organisms then genetic engineering must address this first.


This simply isn't true of woodworking. There's also no way, for instance, to use nuclear power without constructing gallows.It's true that industry kills people, but it's also true that industry benefits a great number of people - considering that the planet currently hosts billions of humans, I'd say that industry supports far more people than it kills.


Technocrats on the one hand and people like John Zerzan on the other have totally mis-framed the debate. It's not an issue of "technology", it's an issue of designing things that are not socially beneficial.Fine, but statements like "fuck cloning" paint with an unnecessarily broad brush. Being able to actually produce viable clones will also expand our knowledge in areas more directly relevant to benefitting people.

[Agrippa]

You mean the fact that clones have shorter lifespans, right? Well, I've read that the reason clones don't live as long as naturally produced organisms is due to their chromosomes having shorter telomeres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere).

Yes, I'd say being born into that fate is a sort of gallows....


I think if cloning is to be a viable method of producing organisms then genetic engineering must address this first.

Sort of like in The Cat in the Hat Comes Back. Get the pink smear off the bathtub by smearing it on the bed, get it off the bed by smearing it on mom's expensive dress....


It's true that industry kills people, but it's also true that industry benefits a great number of people

"Benefit" is subjective.


considering that the planet currently hosts billions of humans, I'd say that industry supports far more people than it kills.

But industry can't support billions of humans, because there aren't enough resources on planet Earth to sustain more than a few generations of billions of humans. So this would be a good example of how "benefit" is subjective. Is bringing someone into the world to let them starve or else drown in their own feces of more "benefit" than merely allowing their spirit to be born in another time and another place?


Fine, but statements like "fuck cloning" paint with an unnecessarily broad brush.

Not if, as I believe, to clone is to construct gallows. It's not a "pick and choose" type of thing for me.


Being able to actually produce viable clones will also expand our knowledge in areas more directly relevant to benefitting people.

But if cloned matter deteriorates more quickly, how is it of any medical benefit? And many destructive capitalist projects are justified under the pretense of "expand[ing] our knowledge". In this specific sense, "expand[ing] our knowledge" is bourgeois.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sort of like in The Cat in the Hat Comes Back. Get the pink smear off the bathtub by smearing it on the bed, get it off the bed by smearing it on mom's expensive dress....

There's no physical reason why it can't be done.


"Benefit" is subjective.

But industry can't support billions of humans, because there aren't enough resources on planet Earth to sustain more than a few generations of billions of humans. So this would be a good example of how "benefit" is subjective. The human population needs reducing, but that does not necessarily mean abandoning industry. Two billion people on Earth would be the target, but reducing overall population growth rates to below replacement level would be a good start.


Is bringing someone into the world to let them starve or else drown in their own feces of more "benefit" than merely allowing their spirit to be born in another time and another place?Umm, you're talking to an atheist materialist here. What exactly do you mean by "spirit"?

Aside from that, the issue of suffering - if people are being born into suffering, then it behooves us to do something about it. Abandoning industry will make that job harder.


Not if, as I believe, to clone is to construct gallows. It's not a "pick and choose" type of thing for me.Would that still be the case if a clone could live as long as naturally produced organism or longer?


But if cloned matter deteriorates more quickly, how is it of any medical benefit?Because studying cloned tissue as it degrades fulfils the observation criterion of the scientific method. How else are we going to find out how to solve the degradation problem? Of course, we don't need to clone humans to do so. It's not like you said "fuck human cloning".


And many destructive capitalist projects are justified under the pretense of "expand[ing] our knowledge". In this specific sense, "expand[ing] our knowledge" is bourgeois.Examples?

[Agrippa]

There's no physical reason why it can't be done.

But there are reasons why it shouldn't be done, which is the point I'm getting at.


The human population needs reducingThe way you say that makes it painfully clear that, despite your anti-capitalist insistence, you still think as if you are the grand architect of some hypothetical utopia. What two random yahoos on the Internet think about what the human population does and does not "need" is irrelevant.

I'd rather take things in from a more realistic point-of-view. If there's going to be a population crisis sortly, what can I, as one of the six billion proles, do to increase my chances of survival?


but that does not necessarily mean abandoning industry.To me, industry without capitalism is a fiction. There's certainly no historical precedent for us to draw upon in imagining a non-capitalist industrial society. That in of itself is not what definitively shows it to be fictional. The truth is, though, that industry needs capitalism to operate.


Umm, you're talking to an atheist materialist here.Exactly. That's part of the problem. To you, consciousness is a brief, finite, one-time fluke of strenuous material circumstances, so it would make sense that your ideology revolves around trying to unnaturally prolong it.


Aside from that, the issue of suffering - if people are being born into suffering, then it behooves us to do something about it. Abandoning industry will make that job harder.Well, I've certainly admitted that all forms of industry cannot be abandoned overnight. We still might have to produce automatic firearms to defend ourselves from those who wish to restore or impose capitalism. (That is, if we can't sucessfully repair or maintain those we already have) Latex condoms are also needed until HIV and AIDS fade away. And industrial methods of production will be needed to produce needles needed to give the injections necessary to spare us from the plagues of the industrial era. But once these problems are a memory, or at least until the wounds scab over, the industrial mode of production must be abandoned entirely.


Would that still be the case if a clone could live as long as naturally produced organism or longer?Right now, thats impossible. The only context you've provided for its possibility is vague "genetic engineering" which could have a whole slew of extremely undesirably side-effects. I could be wrong, but still, I don't see myself signing up for a genetically modified cloned kidney any time soon....I guess I just don't trust capitalist researchers enough to make my organs for me...


Because studying cloned tissue as it degrades fulfils the observation criterion of the scientific method. Scientists have also used that excuse to torture animals and jack off little boys.

In theory I could burn people alive and claim that by observing them being burnt alive I was fulfilling the observation criterion of the scientific method. Since when is the scientific method a set of ethical principles?


How else are we going to find out how to solve the degradation problem?

Why does the problem need to be solved?


Of course, we don't need to clone humans to do so. It's not like you said "fuck human cloning".Of course I didn't. Fuck all cloning.


Examples?Colonization of space. Colonization of the microcosmos. Etc. etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But there are reasons why it shouldn't be done, which is the point I'm getting at.

Such as?


The way you say that makes it painfully clear that, despite your anti-capitalist insistence, you still think as if you are the grand architect of some hypothetical utopia. What two random yahoos on the Internet think about what the human population does and does not "need" is irrelevant.You don't need a PhD to realise there are limits to resources and the rates of their extraction.


I'd rather take things in from a more realistic point-of-view. If there's going to be a population crisis sortly, what can I, as one of the six billion proles, do to increase my chances of survival? Well, what would you do?


To me, industry without capitalism is a fiction. There's certainly no historical precedent for us to draw upon in imagining a non-capitalist industrial society. That in of itself is not what definitively shows it to be fictional. The truth is, though, that industry needs capitalism to operate.Actually, capitalism is a terribly inefficient system for running industry. It needlessly encourages duplication of effort, wasteful practices such as planned obsolescence, and can foster a relaxed attitude to safety and security in favour of profit.


Exactly. That's part of the problem. To you, consciousness is a brief, finite, one-time fluke of strenuous material circumstances, so it would make sense that your ideology revolves around trying to unnaturally prolong it.What's wrong with that? I'd also like the human species to carry on as well. No industry means no space colonisation, which means their will be no chance of any independant colonies surviving an Earth-wide disaster and repopulating the planet and rescuing any survivors once the dust settles. A hopeless death is not something I would wish on my descendants.


Well, I've certainly admitted that all forms of industry cannot be abandoned overnight. We still might have to produce automatic firearms to defend ourselves from those who wish to restore or impose capitalism. (That is, if we can't sucessfully repair or maintain those we already have) Latex condoms are also needed until HIV and AIDS fade away. And industrial methods of production will be needed to produce needles needed to give the injections necessary to spare us from the plagues of the industrial era. But once these problems are a memory, or at least until the wounds scab over, the industrial mode of production must be abandoned entirely. If we've done the best we can to fix our messes and the scars have healed over, why abandon technology? If we can keep industrial society egalitarian for as long as living memory lasts, then surely we can come up with a better plan than "Abandon industry and get wiped out by the next asteroid".


Right now, thats impossible. The only context you've provided for its possibility is vague "genetic engineering" which could have a whole slew of extremely undesirably side-effects. I could be wrong, but still, I don't see myself signing up for a genetically modified cloned kidney any time soon....I guess I just don't trust capitalist researchers enough to make my organs for me...Fair enough.


Scientists have also used that excuse to torture animals and jack off little boys.

In theory I could burn people alive and claim that by observing them being burnt alive I was fulfilling the observation criterion of the scientific method. Since when is the scientific method a set of ethical principles?I never said it was. What's the ethical problem with cloning tissue?


Why does the problem need to be solved?Being able to produce healthy clones would be an enormous research asset.


Of course I didn't. Fuck all cloning.Even cloning of fruit flies? :blink:

[Agrippa]

Such as?

Previously mentioned potential adverse side-effects.


You don't need a PhD to realise there are limits to resources and the rates of their extraction.

I don't follow.


Well, what would you do?

That's off the subject of cloning.


Actually, capitalism is a terribly inefficient system for running industry.

"Workers' management" is even worse. A perfect example is the anarcho-syndicalists in Russia, almost all of whom ran their factories into the ground even by highly sympathetic accounts such as Avrich.


What's wrong with that?

Fear of death must be overcome completely. Death is natural and it's better to have a short, satisfying life than a prolonged, pitiful one.


I'd also like the human species to carry on as well.

Why? Why worry yourself over something that will never be? A good refutation (and this means something coming from me because I fucking hate Christianity) of this neurotic tendency can be found towards the end of C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet. The basic gist is that, since, if, humans survive over millions of years, colonizing distant planets, they will change and adapt to the environments of those planets in accordance with the principles of Darwin's theory of descent. Therefore, planet-scaping humans hundreds of millions of years from now will not resemble modern-day humans in the least. Therefore, why not just take solice in the existence of these hypothetical hospitable planets' original inhabitants, or whatever intelligent life will exist on post-human Earth? No species lasts forever, wheras the universe will always exist, planets with intelligent life will always emerge from the void.


No industry means no space colonisation

That's one of the perks of no industry, IMHO


which means their will be no chance of any independant colonies surviving an Earth-wide disaster and repopulating the planet and rescuing any survivors once the dust settles.

You're obviously really into sci-fi. Here's a good sci-fi quote


All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was.


A hopeless death is not something I would wish on my descendants.

It's beyond your control, so don't stress out about it. There are enough hopeless deaths going on right now to invent hopeless deaths to worry about hundreds of millions of years from now.


If we've done the best we can to fix our messes and the scars have healed over, why abandon technology?

Because certain technologies disrupt the ecology and are not needed to enjoy life, and can actually detract from an enjoyable life, and were only developed and imposed to facilitate bourgeois monopolization.


"Abandon industry and get wiped out by the next asteroid".

So far, industry has not produced a solution to asteroids. I think we should fix the problems we actually stand a chance of solving.


What's the ethical problem with cloning tissue?

It's unethical to create shoddy organic matter.


Being able to produce healthy clones would be an enormous research asset.

"Research" is bourgeois. We already know enough about the human body for almost everyone to live long, satisfying lives.


Even cloning of fruit flies? :blink:

Fruit flies have nervous systems too....

[Technocrat]

"Workers' management" is even worse. A perfect example is the anarcho-syndicalists in Russia, almost all of whom ran their factories into the ground even by highly sympathetic accounts such as Avrich.Who is advocating for worker's management?


Fear of death must be overcome completely. Death is natural and it's better to have a short, satisfying life than a prolonged, pitiful one.Who cares about extending lifespans. If we can cure people of crippling auto immune disorders that will allow more people to live a "short, satisfying life".

The following statement is your opinion: "death is natural and it's better to have a short, satisfying life than a prolonged, pitiful one".

Regardless of how you feel about that statement, the fact remains that it is your subjective opinion. Are you going to enforce it on everyone? How? With a fascist police state that outlaws all forms of genetic research?


Why? Why worry yourself over something that will never be? A good refutation (and this means something coming from me because I fucking hate Christianity) of this neurotic tendency can be found towards the end of C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet. The basic gist is that, since, if, humans survive over millions of years, colonizing distant planets, they will change and adapt to the environments of those planets in accordance with the principles of Darwin's theory of descent. Therefore, planet-scaping humans hundreds of millions of years from now will not resemble modern-day humans in the least. Therefore, why not just take solice in the existence of these hypothetical hospitable planets' original inhabitants, or whatever intelligent life will exist on post-human Earth? No species lasts forever, wheras the universe will always exist, planets with intelligent life will always emerge from the void.Then why worry ourselves over sustainability at all? Let's just consume and fuck our way to oblivion, and then when our food starts to run out, we'll just let the nukes fly.


It's beyond your control, so don't stress out about it. There are enough hopeless deaths going on right now to invent hopeless deaths to worry about hundreds of millions of years from now.Why even worry about those deaths?


Because certain technologies disrupt the ecology and are not needed to enjoy life, and can actually detract from an enjoyable life, and were only developed and imposed to facilitate bourgeois monopolization.There you go. certain technologies disrupt the ecology, blah blah blah.


So far, industry has not produced a solution to asteroids. I think we should fix the problems we actually stand a chance of solving.Actually we have several options for shooting down asteroids, but Price System interference prevents them from being implemented. After all, such a venture wouldn't be very profitable!


It's unethical to create shoddy organic matter.Why? Is it then unethical for people with inheritable diseases to reproduce? All questions regarding ethics or morality are subjective. Therefore, this is still just your opinion. How are you going to enforce your opinion on the masses?


"Research" is bourgeois. We already know enough about the human body for almost everyone to live long, satisfying lives.Where do you think that knowledge came from? From research :laugh:


Fruit flies have nervous systems too....You're right, we should leave the flies alone. Who cares about human lives.

[Agrippa]

Who is advocating for worker's management?

Oh yes, I'm sure the anarcho-technocrat solution is even more far-fetched. Something about AIs and total automation and virtual reality and pleasure-palaces on Europa.

How can current levels of material development be maintained without wage labor and other hallmarks of capitalist infrastructure?


Who cares about extending lifespans. If we can cure people of crippling auto immune disorders that will allow more people to live a "short, satisfying life".

And will cloning produce that "cure", or is that just the bogus claims of capitalist publicists? Many auto-immunity disorders can already be effectively treated.


Regardless of how you feel about that statement, the fact remains that it is your subjective opinion. Are you going to enforce it on everyone? How? With a fascist police state that outlaws all forms of genetic research? So any community that outlaws anything is "fascist" and a "police state"? In my ideal anarchist commune, child molestation would not be allowed either. Does that mean I want a "fascist police state" to "enforce" my "subjective opinion" regarding the well-being of children "on everyone"?

My argument isn't against genetic research or any other research but "research" as an excuse for the further development of state-power and the perpetuation of ecologically disruptive modes of life.


Then why worry ourselves over sustainability at all?The point isn't to make human civilization more "sustainable". The point is to live honorable lives and show respect for the Earth, rather than wounding the Earth out of greed.


Let's just consume and fuck our way to oblivion, and then when our food starts to run out, we'll just let the nukes fly. In my opinion, that's the natural conclusion of you and your friends' proposal.


Why even worry about those deaths?Because they are real rather than the product of an overly obsessive sci-fi insomniac's out-of-control imagination.


There you go. certain technologies disrupt the ecology, blah blah blah. Technology merely refers to craft-making, using hands or other mandables to manipulate the environment. Technology can be good or bad. Some technology, like the guillotine, was developed for a specific negative purpose.


Actually we have several options for shooting down asteroids, but Price System interference prevents them from being implemented. After all, such a venture wouldn't be very profitable! ie: they're totally unfeasable and impractical. Do you think the bourgeoisie wants some crummy little asteroid wiping out everything they've accomplished? They just know it's a problem they can't solve.


Why? Is it then unethical for people with inheritable diseases to reproduce?In my opinion, it is.


All questions regarding ethics or morality are subjective. Good to know. I guess I'm off to rape and murder people, then...


Therefore, this is still just your opinion. How are you going to enforce your opinion on the masses? It's not the masses who are demanding cloning technology. Even if it was, I wouldn't care, as I'm not a lowest-common denominator populist. I don't give two shits about "enforc[ing] [my] opinion on the masses", I just want the masses (and the elites) to leave me the fuck alone.


Where do you think that knowledge came from? From research :laugh:But the idea that anything can be justified under the pretense of "research" is bourgeois. As I have said, enough research has already been conducted on the human body to be sufficient. Cloning is not nessecary.


You're right, we should leave the flies alone. Who cares about human lives.Cloning doesn't make our lives better, it makes our lives worse.

[black magick hustla]

I am just going to adress something that bothers me.



The point isn't to make human civilization more "sustainable". The point is to live honorable lives and show respect for the Earth, rather than wounding the Earth out of greed.

The Earth is not a mind so there is nobody who will hear your respect, or who will be in pain if you wound it. It is like cursing at a rock.



Its Good to know. I guess I'm off to rape and murder people, then...
WEll I think freaming moral choces in terms of subjective or objective is problematic. More like, ethical statements are something that is outside the discourse of true or false. Only platonists and christians would think otherwise. So yes, saying child molesting and rape is good or bad is not a truth-function. And no, its not evident - rape has been seen as legitimate in history for thousands of years.


I dont know about the issue of cloning. I dont think its a terrible technology by itself, but I think it is problematic in the context of class society. Just like bombs are.

[Technocrat]

Oh yes, I'm sure the anarcho-technocrat solution is even more far-fetched. Something about AIs and total automation and virtual reality and pleasure-palaces on Europa.

How can current levels of material development be maintained without wage labor and other hallmarks of capitalist infrastructure?

LOL, you obviously have very little idea of what you are talking about!

The answer to your question is answered in detail by the Technocracy Study Course as well as the more recent Technocracy's Technological Continental Design.

I can summarize for you: By doing more with less.


And will cloning produce that "cure", or is that just the bogus claims of capitalist publicists? Many auto-immunity disorders can already be effectively treated.There is ample evidence suggesting that stem-cell research would lead to cures for diabetes, parkinson's, alzheimer's, and multiple sclerosis, to name just a few. There is currently no effective treatment for these disorders. Even if there is a current treatment, I imagine most people would rather be cured!


So any community that outlaws anything is "fascist" and a "police state"? In my ideal anarchist commune, child molestation would not be allowed either. Does that mean I want a "fascist police state" to "enforce" my "subjective opinion" regarding the well-being of children "on everyone"?That's pretty ridiculous. Outlawing child molestation is obviously something that you will easily get the majority of the population to agree on. It is not so obvious that you will get a similar majority to agree to outlawing all forms of cloning.


My argument isn't against genetic research or any other research but "research" as an excuse for the further development of state-power and the perpetuation of ecologically disruptive modes of life.Well, we agree on that.


The point isn't to make human civilization more "sustainable". The point is to live honorable lives and show respect for the Earth, rather than wounding the Earth out of greed.Wouldn't a more sustainable civilization have to necessarily consume fewer resources and maintain a viable environment, thereby lessening the damage we do?


In my opinion, that's the natural conclusion of you and your friends' proposal.Why do you say that?


Because they are real rather than the product of an overly obsessive sci-fi insomniac's out-of-control imagination.Scientists have proven that on a long enough time scale civilization will be wiped out by an asteroid impact if we do nothing. These same scientists, using the same methods (the scientific method) are also the ones who warn us about resource shortages, global warming, and population problems. Since you claimed earlier that we need to show respect for the earth by "living honorable lives and not wounding the earth out of greed", on what grounds do you make that assertion? If you are going to cite science, then you've defeated yourself. Scientists using the scientific method warn us about ecological impacts. Likewise, scientists using that same scientific method warn us about asteroid impacts. So, using your own logic, I could just as easily turn around and say that the need to "respect the earth" is born out of an overly obsessive eco-primitivist's imagination.


Technology merely refers to craft-making, using hands or other mandables to manipulate the environment. Technology can be good or bad. Some technology, like the guillotine, was developed for a specific negative purpose.Okay, so we are in agreement. There is no need to "abandon technology". Some technologies, sure. But not all.


ie: they're totally unfeasable and impractical. Do you think the bourgeoisie wants some crummy little asteroid wiping out everything they've accomplished? They just know it's a problem they can't solve.No, it isn't because they're impractical. You could have said the same thing about a manned mission to the moon 50 years ago. Why was it that government had to undertake this mission, and not private enterprise? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROFIT. Is it because alternative energy sources are "totally unfeasible and impractical" that private enterprise chooses not to develop them? NO! It is because there is no SHORT TERM PROFIT. Business will not do anything without a profit. Why switch to alternative, clean energy sources when there is a ready supply of cheap, dirty energy? Why build an asteriod defense system WHEN THERE IS NO PROFIT. Do you really think the bourgeoisie gets together as a group and says "shucks, this is something we can't do. Oh well" LOL! In reality, companies need investors. Without profit or the promise of profit, there are no investors. Case closed.


In my opinion, it is.Good to see you recognize that as your opinion.


Good to know. I guess I'm off to rape and murder people, then...A non-sequiter. Why do you say this? How does this relate to what we are talking about?


It's not the masses who are demanding cloning technology. Even if it was, I wouldn't care, as I'm not a lowest-common denominator populist. I don't give two shits about "enforc[ing] [my] opinion on the masses", I just want the masses (and the elites) to leave me the fuck alone.That is a reasonable position. I feel the same way. If the government steps in and dictates to me what cures are moral and what cures aren't, I see that as pretty big interference in my life! No one is demanding that YOU have to enjoy the benefits of cloning research. In other words, you are still being "left alone". What you propose though is huge government interference. If such cures were developed from cloning research, would you hunt down the people who used it anyway and lock them up? The whole idea of banning cloning research falls into the same category as banning same-sex marriage or banning drug use. It is an attempt to legislate morality. Ample evidence shows that attempts to legislate morality tend to fail. Not only that, but I see it as an immoral attempt to enforce the morality of the majority group onto the minority. In other words, it is a way to oppress minorities.


But the idea that anything can be justified under the pretense of "research" is bourgeois. As I have said, enough research has already been conducted on the human body to be sufficient. Cloning is not nessecary.Are you a medical doctor? On what grounds do you base this claim? Because I'm sure there are lots of doctors who would disagree with on this one. Sufficient for what? For your perceived ideal life? Again, you want to enforce your view on the group. Why don't you just keep to yourself and stop trying to dictate to others how they should live?


Cloning doesn't make our lives better, it makes our lives worse.A baseless assertion.

[Revy]

My position is not necessarily that human clones should not be created, but that they be regarded as equally human and fully deserving of the same rights. I really have no moral opposition to cloning human beings, I simply am concerned about the abuses and how they would be treated.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I don't usually disagree with this kind of thing, but for me cloning just crosses a line. Cloning body parts, use of stem cells etc is fine, but it changes when you're actually bringing another person into the world. I don't even know whether that's what the OP was saying, but I took it to be about actual people rather than just bits of them.

1. I can't see any use for human cloning. Science and medicine is progressing so quickly that I doubt there'll ever be a serious need for clones and 'curiosity' isn't a sufficient reason to try something that significant.

2. If you clone another person for a medical reason, surely that person will just be seen as practically useful rather than as a human being who needs to be respected.

3. If you clone another person for no particular reason, would that person be treated as an inferior species? Would they have the same rights as anyone else? Would they be viewed as a freak? If someone were to be cloned, I'd imagine the media attention would be unbearable and unwanted.

4. If doctors start cloning people, would the spiritual value of humans be cheapened? Would humans be then be viewed as things that you could just make more of, like commodities?

5. If I knew that I was the clone of another person, I would want to die and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person who would feel that way. It would be so hard to find an identity. Like identical twins, but even worse.

Just out of interest, does anyone here think it'll ever happen?

[Agrippa]

The Earth is not a mind so there is nobody who will hear your respect, or who will be in pain if you wound it. It is like cursing at a rock.

If the Earth was a "rock", we would all be dead, or more accurately, would never have been born.

Materialist-atheist ignorance of basic biological principals never ceases to amaze me.


WEll I think freaming moral choces in terms of subjective or objective is problematic. More like, ethical statements are something that is outside the discourse of true or false.

Why not just take that trendy relativist deconstruction to its most ridiculous extreme and claim there are no such things as true or false statements, if we're going down that route?


Only platonists and christians would think otherwise. So yes, saying child molesting and rape is good or bad is not a truth-function.

How is that any different than Ayn Rand's philosophy?


I dont know about the issue of cloning. I dont think its a terrible technology by itself, but I think it is problematic in the context of class society. Just like bombs are.

Cloning has never emerged as a form of human behavior outside of "class society"


The answer to your question is answered in detail by the Technocracy Study Course as well as the more recent Technocracy's Technological Continental Design.

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with such important contributions to the intellectual canon. :D


I can summarize for you: By doing more with less.

There's a difference between summaries and vague meaningless plattitudes.


There is ample evidence suggesting that stem-cell research would lead to cures for diabetes, parkinson's, alzheimer's, and multiple sclerosis, to name just a few. There is currently no effective treatment for these disorders.

You're confusing "cure" with "treatment". To say there's "no effective treatment for" diabetes shows you're either totally ignorant of medicine, decietful, or totally brainwashed by the bourgeois medical establishment's idea of medical treatment. The best treatment for Alzheimer's is the abolition of capitalism, given there is also "ample evidence" environmental causes of Alzheimer's. I'm obviously not one of those people who opposes stem-cell research because it kills babies, I usually tend to suspect the claims of medical altruism of being emotionally manipulative justifications of capitalist colonization of the material world on a cellular level.


That's pretty ridiculous. Outlawing child molestation is obviously something that you will easily get the majority of the population to agree on. It is not so obvious that you will get a similar majority to agree to outlawing all forms of cloning.

Ah, so we're mob-rule totalitarian populists rather than communists?

Well, we agree on that.


Wouldn't a more sustainable civilization have to necessarily consume fewer resources and maintain a viable environment, thereby lessening the damage we do?

"Civilization" is usually just used as a euphamism for fuedal and capitalist modes of production.


Why do you say that?

I can easily see a more "libertarian" industrial society degenerating quickly into warlordism and anarcho-capitalism, which has a greater chance of escalating into a nuclear holocaust than even our current geo-political situation.


Scientists have proven that on a long enough time scale civilization will be wiped out by an asteroid impact if we do nothing.

So? On a long enough time scale, the whole universe as we know it will condence itself into the size of a ballpoint pen, effectively destroying the descendents of all forms of existing organic life. Nothing lasts forever, bro.


These same scientists, using the same methods (the scientific method) are also the ones who warn us about resource shortages, global warming, and population problems.

They're also the research-and-development wing of the capitalist system, the same capitalist system that caused the above-mentioned problems.


Since you claimed earlier that we need to show respect for the earth by "living honorable lives and not wounding the earth out of greed", on what grounds do you make that assertion?

On the grounds that asteroid and comet collisions are a natural and healthy part of life in the universe, just like supernovas, black holes, and other astronomical phenomenon that frequently wipe out entire planets full of life. We can't change any of these things, but we can stop industrial capitalism from killing our ecology. Respecting the Earth doesn't mean beliving naively that life on Earth will go on forever, just as being disgusted by the idea of someone raping your mother is not the same thing as believing your mother is immortal.


Likewise, scientists using that same scientific method warn us about asteroid impacts.

But what's missing is any practical sollution to the dillema.

I have a perfectly practical solution. Get over the fear of death.


Okay, so we are in agreement. There is no need to "abandon technology". Some technologies, sure. But not all.

You're understating our differences. We probably have radically different ideas of what technologies should and should not be abandoned.


You could have said the same thing about a manned mission to the moon 50 years ago.

You're basing your argument against me on what I "could have said [...] 50 years ago"? Weak.

No, it isn't because they're impractical. [...] Why was it that government had to undertake this mission, and not private enterprise? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROFIT.[/quote]

"The government" is as much in it for the profit as "private enterprise". The military-industrial complex sure profited off of the development of the space program. The mass media sure profited off of the interest generated in the moon-landing publicity stunt.


Is it because alternative energy sources are "totally unfeasible and impractical" that private enterprise chooses not to develop them?

"Private enterprises" are developing them.

http://signalfire.org/?p=75
http://signalfire.org/?p=227

(Unless by "private enterprises" you just mean the oil and coal industries)


NO! It is because there is no SHORT TERM PROFIT.

Not all capitalists (be they "private" and "public") are reckless idiots who think only in the short term.


Business will not do anything without a profit.

And a "sustainable" capitalist civilization that lasts another 600 years is more profitable than one that may collapse in 50.


Why switch to alternative, clean energy sources when there is a ready supply of cheap, dirty energy?

The motivations for the capitalist class to do so are obvious. For example, "cleaner" energy means less social contradictions to deal with, less potential threats to instability. (The same reason the racist US settler-state now celebrates "Black History Month")


Why build an asteriod defense system WHEN THERE IS NO PROFIT.

The reason an asteroid defense system hasn't been built is because there's no way to do it, especially with the massive amount of space debris the space-industry has created.


Do you really think the bourgeoisie gets together as a group and says "shucks, this is something we can't do. Oh well"

Obviously not. Hence why a section of the bourgeoisie is really into "asteroid defense systems" (which by the way could easily double as "national defense systems")

Good to see you recognize that as your opinion.

A non-sequiter. Why do you say this? How does this relate to what we are talking about?


If the government steps in and dictates to me what cures are moral and what cures aren't, I see that as pretty big interference in my life!

There's a difference between safety and morality.


No one is demanding that YOU have to enjoy the benefits of cloning research. In other words, you are still being "left alone".

No, because the development of cloning technology helps the bourgeoisie and hurts the proletariat


What you propose though is huge government interference.

I'm not proposing any solution from within the context of the capitalist "government" because I am an anarchist.


If such cures were developed from cloning research

"If", "if", "if"......


The whole idea of banning cloning research falls into the same category as banning same-sex marriage or banning drug use.

Except there are no negative consequences of homosexual marriage and the destruction of drug-prohibition. There are plenty of negative consequences of cloning and few positive ones, other than the vague promise of "curing" [X] disease with always uncited "ample evidence"


It is an attempt to legislate morality. Ample evidence shows that attempts to legislate morality tend to fail.

Why should I care about the "failure" or "success" of capitalist legislation? What I'm talking about is undermining the material stranglehold that capitalists wield, what you inaccurately refer to as "technology".


Are you a medical doctor?

Are you?


On what grounds do you base this claim?

On the grounds that the vast majority of medical maladies have very simple, down-to-Earth remedies, and the small minority of those that do not will probably never be cured, despite the deceptive promises of capitalist researchers, which appeal to Utopian, Polyanna desires. No matter how much "medical research' is done, there will always be human suffering in this world.

[Technocrat]

If the Earth was a "rock", we would all be dead, or more accurately, would never have been born.

Materialist-atheist ignorance of basic biological principals never ceases to amaze me.

Is this a deliberate misinterpretation? The point is that the earth is no more conscious of our presence than a rock is. Materialist-atheists pretty much wrote those basic biological principles, and at the very least, it is the theist position which is fundamentally in contradiction to basic biological principles.


Why not just take that trendy relativist deconstruction to its most ridiculous extreme and claim there are no such things as true or false statements, if we're going down that route?Did you just become an intellectual? How cute. You do throw around terms in the characteristic way of one newly initiated into intellectual circles. Do you always intentionally obfuscate your opponent's argument to try to make your own argument make sense/appear stronger, or do you actually not understand the points being made to that degree?

I guess I really do have to spell it out here:

What is subjective can never be considered true or false. Only that which is objective can ever be called such. Get it?


How is that any different than Ayn Rand's philosophy?Since this is such an incredible non-sequitur, I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate how it is similar to Ayn Rand's philosophy.


Cloning has never emerged as a form of human behavior outside of "class society"LOL, neither has any other form of human behavior! :laugh:


I'm sorry I'm not familiar with such important contributions to the intellectual canon. :DSo you feel justified in making baseless claims and rejecting ideas before even becoming aware of what it is that you are rejecting. Got it.


There's a difference between summaries and vague meaningless plattitudes. Infinite apologies for not being able to describe the whole of Technocratic theory to you in five minutes. This is a fairly complex subject. Ample information already exists. Why would I sit here and waste my time with trying to re-write what has already been written?


You're confusing "cure" with "treatment". To say there's "no effective treatment for" diabetes shows you're either totally ignorant of medicine, decietful, or totally brainwashed by the bourgeois medical establishment's idea of medical treatment.I have Type I diabetes. So I would like to think that I know what I'm talking about, here.

Do you understand what a chronic illness is? It means that the symptoms are permanently recurrent, regardless of the treatment, the condition still exists. Therefore there is no *effective* treatment. This is just pointless quibbling over semantics, though.


The best treatment for Alzheimer's is the abolition of capitalism, given there is also "ample evidence" environmental causes of Alzheimer's. I'm obviously not one of those people who opposes stem-cell research because it kills babies, I usually tend to suspect the claims of medical altruism of being emotionally manipulative justifications of capitalist colonization of the material world on a cellular level.And how exactly would the abolition of capitalism result in the environmental conditions favorable to the reduction of Alzheimer's? I'm not saying that it wouldn't, but the connection has not been made. Also the claim "stem cell research kills babies" shows a basic ignorance of the entire topic. Maybe you should read a little on what stem cell research actually is.


Ah, so we're mob-rule totalitarian populists rather than communists?

Well, we agree on that.Totalitarian populist... now *that's* a new one. Kindly explain how you suggest society determines *subjective* matters... if not by voting/popular consent than by what means?


"Civilization" is usually just used as a euphamism for fuedal and capitalist modes of production.What is your point?


I can easily see a more "libertarian" industrial society degenerating quickly into warlordism and anarcho-capitalism, which has a greater chance of escalating into a nuclear holocaust than even our current geo-political situation.We don't advocate for a more libertarian industrial society, that is a false assumption on your part, or an incorrect interpretation, I'm not sure which.


So? On a long enough time scale, the whole universe as we know it will condence itself into the size of a ballpoint pen, effectively destroying the descendents of all forms of existing organic life. Nothing lasts forever, bro.Nothing lasts forever. I do not dispute that. You are trying to suggest here that because nothing lasts forever that we shouldn't try something. The connection has not been made - you have not justified your claim with this statement.


They're also the research-and-development wing of the capitalist system, the same capitalist system that caused the above-mentioned problems.What is your point? Just because I make a problem for myself, that means I can't fix it, someone else has to do it? Bullshit. You haven't made a successful argument here.


On the grounds that asteroid and comet collisions are a natural and healthy part of life in the universe, just like supernovas, black holes, and other astronomical phenomenon that frequently wipe out entire planets full of life. We can't change any of these things, but we can stop industrial capitalism from killing our ecology. Respecting the Earth doesn't mean beliving naively that life on Earth will go on forever, just as being disgusted by the idea of someone raping your mother is not the same thing as believing your mother is immortal.According to this logic, plagues are also natural, so let's also get rid of vaccines and cures for those, too. Maybe we can't stop an asteroid collision, but if we are able to I say it is worth the expense. I could really care less if the earth went on forever. Being a human being, I am concerned with the quality of human life, my own and others. I recognize that humans need a sustainable environment to have a good life, and this means living in balance with nature.


But what's missing is any practical sollution to the dillema.

I have a perfectly practical solution. Get over the fear of death.I think it's pretty insulting that you keep suggesting that I "get over the fear of death". Why don't you refrain from personal comments like that? How do you know what I do or don't feel about the subject? How do you know that I haven't already made more progress in this area than you have?

If there is a practical solution missing, that is a technical problem. If there is no technical solution at all (doubtful), then that's that.


You're understating our differences. We probably have radically different ideas of what technologies should and should not be abandoned.Maybe, but how do you know?


You're basing your argument against me on what I "could have said [...] 50 years ago"? Weak.Uh, no. I was demonstrating that statements like "it's completely impractical" have been made before and shown to be false.


"The government" is as much in it for the profit as "private enterprise". The military-industrial complex sure profited off of the development of the space program. The mass media sure profited off of the interest generated in the moon-landing publicity stunt.Okay, but this just supports my claim - there was no profit involved for private companies, so the government had to do it. This supports my entire point that in a Price System, things only happen when there is profit, and not for any other reason (even if it is a good reason).


"Private enterprises" are developing them.

http://signalfire.org/?p=75
http://signalfire.org/?p=227

(Unless by "private enterprises" you just mean the oil and coal industries)Yes, they are developing them now with the help of government subsidies to make them profitable. Part of this is that it is a niche market, people now know that there is a demand for "green products" so there will be some opportunity to meet that demand. However, if you look at the investments made in alternative energy by the *energy companies* you will see that almost none of them take the idea of alternative energy seriously, because they simply don't stand to make that much money from it! If anything they stand to make more money by keeping society reliant on fossil energies, since a scarce product just means a higher price and therefore more profit!


Not all capitalists (be they "private" and "public") are reckless idiots who think only in the short term.No, I wasn't trying to suggest that. However, if you know the way any major company works, you understand that most companies are only looking at their "bottom line" which is basically what their profits will be a few months from now. Long-range planning does not really take place. Long-range planning based on *extrapolation* of current trends is the norm, because that is what is re-assuring to investors.


And a "sustainable" capitalist civilization that lasts another 600 years is more profitable than one that may collapse in 50.Please explain this sustainable capitalist civilization that will last another 600 years. I would like to know how that would work, exactly. Also, more importantly, how does that relate to what we are talking about?


The motivations for the capitalist class to do so are obvious. For example, "cleaner" energy means less social contradictions to deal with, less potential threats to instability. (The same reason the racist US settler-state now celebrates "Black History Month")There is only enough motivation to make things as clean as is socially tolerable, while keeping them as dirty and cheap as they can get away with.


The reason an asteroid defense system hasn't been built is because there's no way to do it, especially with the massive amount of space debris the space-industry has created.A technical problem.


There's a difference between safety and morality.I agree. If a cure is found to be perfectly safe, but for some reason is found to be "immoral" by a certain segment of the population, does that mean that I don't get to use it? An analogy here is drug use. A lot of cancer and aids patients find that it is beneficial for them to smoke cannabis, yet society sees this as immoral. What is your take on this? Should they have their medicine taken away from them because society has deemed the use of it to be immoral?


No, because the development of cloning technology helps the bourgeoisie and hurts the proletariatThis is another baseless assertion. You provide no evidence for this whatsoever.


I'm not proposing any solution from within the context of the capitalist "government" because I am an anarchist.I'm also not proposing any solution from within the capitalist system. However, as an anarchist, how do you propose to ban cloning research? That runs completely contrary to the idea of anarchism.


"If", "if", "if"......Obviously you don't follow the news in regards to this issue, they've already made a lot of progress in treating people with stem cells.


Except there are no negative consequences of homosexual marriage and the destruction of drug-prohibition. There are plenty of negative consequences of cloning and few positive ones, other than the vague promise of "curing" [X] disease with always uncited "ample evidence"It depends on who you ask. What about the desctruction of marriage? I'm not against it, but the point is that it is subjective, just like when you say "there are plenty of negative consequences" with which you have no evidence for.

The research is all over the place. I don't really want to collect it all for you but here is something I found in about 10 seconds:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/story?id=4318544&page=1

If you want, I can really embarass you and compile a huge collection of evidence supporting the stem cell thing. I suggest you just drop it now since your chips are already down.


Why should I care about the "failure" or "success" of capitalist legislation? What I'm talking about is undermining the material stranglehold that capitalists wield, what you inaccurately refer to as "technology".You miss the point (again). The rest of your paragraph is a non-sequitur, care to explain?


Are you?No, but I do have *extensive* experience in this field as a volunteer advocate for Stem Cell research. On what grounds do you base your claims other than your wild opinions?


On the grounds that the vast majority of medical maladies have very simple, down-to-Earth remedies, and the small minority of those that do not will probably never be cured, despite the deceptive promises of capitalist researchers, which appeal to Utopian, Polyanna desires. No matter how much "medical research' is done, there will always be human suffering in this world.This is a bunch of crap - I've already shown how numerous diseases could potentially be completely cured. Using your logic, we never would have even developed insulin, on the grounds that "there will always be human suffering in this world."

[Agrippa]

The point is that the earth is no more conscious of our presence than a rock is.

You know this for certain because at one point you felt what it was like to be the Earth, and have a memory of this experience? Or are you presuming, as your ilk frequently enjoys doing?


Materialist-atheists pretty much wrote those basic biological principlesAccording to factually inaccurate, ideologically motivated historical revisionism, sure....


and at the very least, it is the theist position which is fundamentally in contradiction to basic biological principles.Biological principles, as far as I'm concerned, are not implicitly theistic or atheistic.


Did you just become an intellectual? How cute. You do throw around terms in the characteristic way of one newly initiated into intellectual circles.Is there a way in which I used the words in that sentence that gave the impression I was using them incorrectly or unfamiliar with? Or are you just looking for excuses to nit-pick? I'm sorry I used big words, if I used small words you'd probably be making fun of me for that. :rolleyes:


Do you always intentionally obfuscate your opponent's argument to try to make your own argument make sense/appear strongerDo you always resort to sophism rather than addressing the argument at hand?


What is subjective can never be considered true or false. Only that which is objective can ever be called such. Get it?Since our entire basis for observing the phenomenal world is our subjective experience, how is it possible to make an arbitrary attempt to atomize "ethical truths" from all other forms of truth? If there's no such thing as ethical truth, how can there be truth at all? What makes something an ethical truth (and therefore "subjective" and somehow not true) rather than a plain old truth? You're just trying to cover for the fact that you used the "morality is subjective" argument as a non-sequitorial, naval-gazing retort to my insistance that cloning has myriad health and safety problems. I pointed out that you can use that same fuzzy pseudo-philosophical non-reasoning to justify anything, including child molestation. So let's save the empirical debate for another time and stick to the matter at hand.

Since this is such an incredible non-sequitur, I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate how it is similar to Ayn Rand's philosophy.


LOL, neither has any other form of human behavior! :laugh:So economic class exists in all societies? What's the point of the communist political project, which promises to abolish class?


So you feel justified in making baseless claims and rejecting ideas before even becoming aware of what it is that you are rejecting. I didn't have to go see Transformers II to know it sucked. You know why? because I saw Transformers.


This is a fairly complex subject.I doubt it.


Do you understand what a chronic illness is? It means that the symptoms are permanently recurrent, regardless of the treatment, the condition still exists.But the symptoms can, potentially, be so effectively managed through proper lifestyle choices that that the condition isn't an issue. I'm not denying that it's difficult for people with type 1 diabetes, but I don't think cloning offers a solution, I think it's likely to cause three times as many medical problems as it could have the potential to fix, if it can fix any. I think the primary incentives for reasearch into cloning are not medical holy grails but the agro-industry's interest in in vitro meat (which have negative health effects for the consumer) and the bourgeoisie's desire to cheaply and easily produce human capital.


Therefore there is no *effective* treatment.Yes, there are ways for people with type 1 diabetes to lives lives as full and satisfying and healthy and pain-free as that of someone without. I say this based on my relationships with sufferers of type 1 diabetes. To say that there's no effective treatment is wrong, but even if it was right, it's irrelvant, because cloning is not an effective treatment.

I think people with diffuclt medical conditions tend to lack onto distant, far-off potentials for instantanious, effortless "cures" because of the obvious stress and challenge of having to deal with a chronic medical condition. However, offering people false hope in no way improves their lives.


And how exactly would the abolition of capitalism result in the environmental conditions favorable to the reduction of Alzheimer's?Because of the link between Alzheimer's and neurological toxins?


Also the claim "stem cell research kills babies" shows a basic ignorance of the entire topic.Uh, re-read what I said. I said I'm not one of those people who says that.


Maybe you should read a little on what stem cell research actually is. Maybe you should read other peoples' posts before responding.


Totalitarian populist... now *that's* a new one.Oh, now I'm being criticized for using new terms. Why not just criticize me on the grounds that my posts don't include an even number of vowels and consonents...

Kindly explain how you suggest society determines *subjective* matters... if not by voting/popular consent than by what means? [/quote]

I can't speak for how the whole of society should do something because I'm not the whole of society. I'm an individaul and I only have control over individual choices. As an individual, I am opposed to cloning because I think it's unsafe and it gives the bourgeoisie more control, and I think the potential medical benefits are overstated.


What is your point? My point is that an egalitarian, libertarian, communal society with "civilized" (ie: fuedal, capitalist) modes of production has no historical precedent and may not be feasable.


We don't advocate for a more libertarian [...] societyCouldn't agree more. :D


Nothing lasts forever. I do not dispute that. You are trying to suggest here that because nothing lasts forever that we shouldn't try something.But the conditions needed to create a meteor-defense system (industrial-scale mining, food consumption, etc.) lead to ecological crisis, which cannot be sustained. Therefore, in is an inadequite sollution to the non-issue of meteror and asteroid collisions, because it cannot be maintained indefinitely. (This is assuming an effective meteor-defense system would even work at all, rather than resulting in Earth getting rained on with space debris) It's out of our hands, we just shouldn't worry about it. Let's solve problems actually within our power to fix.


What is your point? Just because I make a problem for myself, that means I can't fix it, someone else has to do it?So now you think the bourgeoisie are going to fix the problems they created? Why aren't you in OI?


According to this logic, plagues are also naturalYes, but so is the human practice medicine.

Space weapons programs, on the other hand, are "natural" in the sense of belonging to the phenomenal world like everything else, but are not "natural" in that they cannot be sustained for long periods of time, they undermine individual freedom, they require massive amounts of stripmining and other ecological devistation to create and maintain, they require an alienated and bureaucratized mode of production to produce, etc.


Maybe we can't stop an asteroid collision, but if we are able to I say it is worth the expense.Even if the expense is ecological crisis, increase in the material power of the capitalist state, etc.?


I could really care less if the earth went on forever. Being a human being, I am concerned with the quality of human life, my own and others.Thus, you must concede that asteroid collisions are not the most pertinant threat to the quality of human life. The material conditions needed to create a space-weapons program big enough to pwn an asteroid would be more of a threat to the quality of human life.


I think it's pretty insulting that you keep suggesting that I "get over the fear of death".They're not direccted at you personally, stop being paranoid and touchy.

Anyone who can't accept the fact that one day this geological era will come to an end in one way or another, and one of those ways could be an asteroid, comet, or meteor collision, has, in my opinion, a juvenile view of death. Even if we could "cure" ateroid collisions, there are dozens of other natural phenomenon responsible for global catastrophies, (research the natural history of planet Earth for more information) none of which there are any practical solutions for. Earth was not meant to exist in a static, unchanging state. Individuals live and die, and so do species, and so do planets.

If there is a practical solution missing, that is a technical problem. If there is no technical solution at all (doubtful), then that's that.


Maybe, but how do you know? Well, considering you want to develop a space-weapons program for blowing up asteroids, it's just a hunch. How would a communist society rule over a space-weapons program? Would we just all trust each other not to shoot at each others' homes with giant space-lasers?


Uh, no. I was demonstrating that statements like "it's completely impractical" have been made before and shown to be false. Yes. They've also been made before and shown to be true.


Okay, but this just supports my claim - there was no profit involved for private companies, so the government had to do it.Do you think there was no private-sector involvement in the development of the space program in the US? Did the government own the steel plants?


This supports my entire point that in a Price System, things only happen when there is profit, and not for any other reason (even if it is a good reason).My criticisms of capitalism, however, go beyond the "price system", and extend to all modes of political operation in which bourgeois values reign supreme.


Yes, they are developing them now with the help of government subsidies to make them profitable.And why do you think that is? Because the thought of all the polar bears dying off makes Tom Vilsack cry?


However, if you look at the investments made in alternative energy by the *energy companies* you will see that almost none of them take the idea of alternative energy seriouslyIf that were true, why should we be expected to take it seriously ourselves? Unfortunately, it's not true. Capitalist investors take green energy very seriously, as I've already provided evidence of, because they know it's the only way to prolong the capitalist system.


because they simply don't stand to make that much money from it!How so?


If anything they stand to make more money by keeping society reliant on fossil energiesNot all sectors of capitalism have the same interests. The only ones who make money off of reliance on fossil energies are the oil, coal, and natural gas companies. For the rest, it's a disaster.


since a scarce product just means a higher price and therefore more profit!Your analysis is a tad reductionist, in my opinion. You're not taking into consideration, for example, how dependent the global economy is on massive amounts of easily-liberated energy, and the economic devistation it creates when that energy is scarce. Sure, the oil companies still make a profit, but unlike pseudo-fascist liberal conspiracy theorists, I don't think global capitalism is ruled by the oil companies.


No, I wasn't trying to suggest that. However, if you know the way any major company works, you understand that most companies are only looking at their "bottom line" which is basically what their profits will be a few months from now. Long-range planning does not really take place.Do you have any experiences or examples to validate this claim, or is it an assumption?

Also, green energy is good for the "bottom line".


Long-range planning based on *extrapolation* of current trends is the norm, because that is what is re-assuring to investors. A total collapse of the modern industrial infastructure isn't reassuring to investors either.


how does that relate to what we are talking about?Because the rallying call of capitalist development of "alternative energy" is "sustainability", ie: prolonging capitalist global rule.


There is only enough motivation to make things as clean as is socially tolerable, while keeping them as dirty and cheap as they can get away with. Obviously, but "cleaner" energy is also more reliable and less prone to disaster. It's just generally more reliable. If you think it's a more sensible solution to powering your anarcho-capitalist technocratic utopia, the capitalists are smart enough to realize the same thing about their pet social projects as well.


A technical problem. Well, yes, it's a problem. We've already established that. What's the solution?


I agree. If a cure is found to be perfectly safe, but for some reason is found to be "immoral" by a certain segment of the population, does that mean that I don't get to use it?As we've already established the debate is not about morality but about health and safety.


A lot of cancer and aids patients find that it is beneficial for them to smoke cannabis, yet society sees this as immoral.Their concerns of cannabis' immorality are irrational and not founded in any legitimate concerns of or complaints regarding health or safety. (At least, if they are, I haven't heard them yet) You're comparing two superficially similar positions to make an appeal to absurdity in lieu of a rational argument.


Should they have their medicine taken away from them because society has deemed the use of it to be immoral?As I've stated before, I'm not concerned as much with public opinion, as I am with the facts as I see them.


This is another baseless assertion. You provide no evidence for this whatsoever. I'm pretty sure I've already sufficiently made by case for the hazardous nature of cloning, and the nefarious benefits it provides to the bourgeoisie. If you choose to ignore my argument, that's your issue.


However, as an anarchist, how do you propose to ban cloning research? That runs completely contrary to the idea of anarchism. So anarchism precludes any limits on any social behavior of any kind? Welp, once again I'm off to rape and murder...


Obviously you don't follow the news in regards to this issue, they've already made a lot of progress in treating people with stem cells.Perhaps, but the argument wasn't about stem cells, but about cloning.

I'm still skeptical, however. The capitalist medical establishment always justifies its existence by claiming that it's "just on the bring" or "is making headway" into this or that magic cure that possibly doesn't exist. It also doesn't help that instead of providing links, you just say "the news".


It depends on who you ask. What about the desctruction of marriage? I'm not against it, but the point is that it is subjectiveBlah blah, more of this subjective ethics crap.
Objectively and materially, how does homosexual marriage harm or hamper anyone?

Are you basically saying that because I think something you think is good is bad, I am exactly like every other person who has ever claimed anything is bad in the history of human debate, because all ethnics are subjective? What's the point of this wishy, postmodern over-deconstruction, other than to obscure debate?

, just like when you say "there are plenty of negative consequences" with which you have no evidence for.[/quote]Your technocratic ally Noxion provided the evidence for me, if you go back and re-read the argument.



http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/story?id=4318544&page=1


However, any time a new cell is introduced into the body, our immune system treats it as any other foreign invader and attempts to reject it.
Thus, patients receiving islet cell transplants are required to also receive medications that reduce their immune response to prevent rejection of the cells. As a result, less than 8 percent of islet cell transplants performed before last year were successful, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).



But despite the enormous potential for this technique to free possibly millions of Americans from their diabetes, some experts remain doubtful that this technology will be available to the public any time soon.



Many diabetes and stem cell experts believe there are a number of hurdles to overcome before this technique could replace the traditional method of transplanting islet cells from cadaver organs.
Dr. Anne Peters, director of University of Southern California's Clinical Diabetes Programs, said this study fails to provide an answer for one of the most pressing issues faced by any diabetes patient receiving any form of islet cell transplantation: What guarantee would doctors have that the transplanted insulin-producing cells would not be destroyed by the body, just as the diabetic patient's own cells were?
"What would happen to these cells in that environment?" Peters said.
Also, just as with current methods of islet cell transplantation, the body will still recognize the insulin-producing cells grown from human embryonic stem cells as being foreign. Therefore, diabetes patients undergoing this new technique will still require immunosuppressant therapies, most of them for their entire lives.
Moreover, one of the biggest concerns about injecting patients with embryonic stem cells is that these cells have the potential to develop into cancerous tumors.
"The study does show that these [human embryonic stem cells] might have developed to a point where they appear to be no longer [tumor-forming]," said Dr. Bryon Petersen, associate professor in the department of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine. "This is a good thing, but what needs to follow is just how long will these cells stay fully differentiated — to make these cells no longer a threat to the patient's long-term health."In other words, it's likely a wash-out. A cruel trick to give people with type 1 diabetes false hope in order to get them to support other, more nefarious forms of capitalist bio-tech such as cloning, (the real motivations for which I've already explained previously as being an interest in in vitro meat and cheap, easy production of human capital) while distracting from the obvious environmental causes of type 2 diabetes (which amounts for approximately 90% of diabetes sufferes) which can be solved very easily.



The rest of your paragraph is a non-sequiturNo it isn't.


No, but I do have *extensive* experience in this field as a volunteer advocate for Stem Cell research.]/quote]

Does that translate into medical expertise? The people who want to blow up stem-stell doctors because they are alleged "baby-killers" probably also claim to have "extensive experience" as "volunteer advocates"...

[quote]This is a bunch of crap - I've already shown how numerous diseases could potentially be completely cured. No you haven't. You just linked to some lame ABC medical industry fluff piece, which, buried under propaganda, inadvertently refuted your own argument.


Using your logic, we never would have even developed insulin, on the grounds that "there will always be human suffering in this world."Insulin is in no way comporable to cloning technology in terms of potentially disastrous consequences. It's ridiculous for you to even make that comparison. However, as wonderful as insulin is, I don't think the existence of insulin justifies the destruction of the commons, the witch trials, or any of the other methods of painful cultural genocide needed to impose industrialism.

[Outinleftfield]

I can think of many reasons people would want to clone. A person might be unable to reproduce naturally. Or a same-sex couple might want a child only with DNA from the couple. A person might just think it's cool for there to be a genetic copy of themselves walking around, but even then it's a human being with its own mind and you can't make it fit a certain mold if they grow up and decide they don't want to.

A lot of people here seem to be talking about using cloning for enhancement. That's not cloning. Cloning is an exact copy. Enhancement is genetic engineering and there's no reason you'd have to clone and then alter the clone in order to do that. You could do it to a baby produced naturally or through IVF. Genetic engineering is a separate issue. I think genetic engineering could help us a lot. A lot of genetic diseases could go away. I understand the objections to creating "supermen" but if you think about it the only reason "disease" is considered "disease" is because it's in the minority. If "supermen" were the majority they would be called "normal" and we'd all have diseases that people would advocate "curing". By the same logic that applies to justify curing genetic diseases we can enhance our genes. In both cases we are trading a gene that is relatively poor to a gene that is relatively good, it's just that in one case we have labeled the poor gene "diseased" and in another case we have not.

Many people see issues with autonomy here, but babies do not choose their genetic code anyways. How is changing it violating their autonomy any more than leaving it to nature? We "change" babies in the womb all the time if there are medical problems. Gene therapy that helps a baby doesn't violate its autonomy any more than surgery to remove a tumor that develops in the womb.

Besides that gene therapy isn't just going to be for babies. It won't be long after it becomes possible to give babies gene therapy and it will be possible to give adults gene therapy if they want it, so if someone really felt cheated because their parents removed genes for allergies, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and gave them genes for higher intelligence, more stamina they could always just choose to change themselves back when they grow up.

There is one problem though. An authoritarian state could mandate genes that create a demeanor that is easily controlled by the state kind of like how they made an army of docile, obedient clone troopers in Star Wars. We can avoid this by not centralizing control over genetics.

EDIT: Another problem people bring up is cloning for medical purposes. I don't see any reason why you'd go to the trouble of cloning a whole human being when cloning organs would be more efficient. Someone brought up time, but even then why not just clone the body without the brain, then it would just be a big lump of flesh since personhood is in the brain.

[No Capitalism]

I have nothing against human cloning.

[Technocrat]

Okay, cool. You don't support cloning.

You know what? I couldn't care less.

It's when you suggest that we "ban cloning" as a society that you then have to answer for yourself.

How would you do this? How? How? How?

You also have not answered the critical question of specifically what "disasterous consequences" would occur from the use of cloning. Clearly, this is just your speculation. Could you at least give us a hint of the terrible future that awaits us? You are the one with an "insomniac's out of control sci-fi imagination", since you appear to be into science fiction stories regarding the horrors of cloning.

You have not answered that, you just keep repeating the same thing again and again.

If you are just here to say that you are opposed to cloning, that's great - I don't care.

I'm going to have to extricate myself from this whole thing, since I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this "debate".