Cloning

Jayfeather

Gay Magician
Donor
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
3,205
Reaction score
3,051
Points
138
But it implies a less than normal development, could imply weakness mentally and physically.
If done right, no, they would grow as the average human just with dna components exactly equal to someone else. (or mostly equal?? I'm tired and forgot what would define a clone)

thanks for the article. going by the bottom paragraph on page one, the "moral debate" over whether or not it should be done is largely a religious issue, akin to lgb discrimination.
There are gonna be different arguments that religious people present for why human cloning shouldn't commence rather than why lgbta+ shouldn't...do whatever they don't want us to do (a lot of things)
So while I'd personally love to lump all their arguments into "crazy + bigoted rhetoric" it's going to hold different weight in different arguments
 

Chocfudgemud

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
137
Reaction score
73
Points
28
Cloning is definitely an interesting topic
As a kid I always wondered to my self stuff like
'How cool could it be to have another me?'
But now when you look at it, it seems a bit weird.
Personally I now think it's unethical to clone as it does in fact go against my beliefs. However I won't go into that any more.
I think it would be potentially hazardous to the subjects too as their immune systems might not be fully functional.
I do also think it would be extremely hard to live life as a properly constructed clone, as you would be shunned my society and treated differently at first.
Honestly I just think it would be a bad thing to do especially if, like stated earlier, the clones were used for war and slavery. To me it doesn't seem ethical.
Note that this is my opinion and I accept that you might think differently.
 

Wink

¡Juego de las Pulgas!
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
548
Reaction score
823
Points
63
just take my advise: cloning is
B
A
D
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons

Anyhow I'm gonna use my 5 in AP Biology knowledge to throw out the citation that genetics is not all that composes an individual. Sure, let's say we clone two identical people. But let's change the environment: one raised in poverty in East Oakland, and one raided as a billionaire in Berkeley. After the first twenty years of life, a decent hypothesis would be that environment has a role in shaping an individual, just as much as genetics. Sometimes nurture can play as a deciding factor in who or what a person is.
 

Kloud_Strife

TNT Drama Queen
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
327
Reaction score
355
Points
43
The whole how much nature vs. nurture has to do with genetics has been around for a while, although afaik it's starting to take a backseat to the investigation of more esoteric genetic stuff, but I have a pretty firm belief that humans fall on the nurture side more than nature.

So basically... A clone would be like a twin brother of you (with horrible defects until clones stop ending up as those), except way less like you than a normal twin because you were raised in drastically different environments. It's almost literally just an identical twin.
 

SirCiph

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
32
Reaction score
68
Points
18
well one thing's for certain: today's humans are 66% less potent than they were 60 years ago.
You can thank petrol-plastic for that.
Do you have a source for any of this...? I can't find anything in my own research.

Plus, what the fuck does potency have to do with cloning? This issue is completely irrelevant. May we stay on topic please?