primitive wrote:As blan as the clones would be, their sense of moral would be intact I'm sure.
ThomasGR wrote:Cloning exceptional persons; such people do not exist.-
Eureka wrote:Clones would not be more obedient than other humans
Eureka wrote:and there is no reason at all why clones would be the property of their cloners. Are all people the possessions of their parents?
nostos wrote:only the nuclear DNA, and not the mitochondrial also, was cloned.
nostos wrote:There are in all probability no genetic bases for obedience,
How, then, do you account for the domestication of animals? This is pure genetic manipulation that occurred over thousands of years by selective breeding.
edonnelly wrote:nostos wrote:only the nuclear DNA, and not the mitochondrial also, was cloned.
Mitochondrial DNA is passed unaltered (barring mutation) from mother to child, so, in effect, it already is "cloned" DNA.nostos wrote:There are in all probability no genetic bases for obedience,
How, then, do you account for the domestication of animals? This is pure genetic manipulation that occurred over thousands of years by selective breeding.
nostos wrote:And therefore you can't manipulate it to be more obedient without generations of hit-or-miss breeding (sexual or cloning, it's all breeding).
nostos wrote:it takes no account of the myriad phenotypes which are not expressed in the specimen you're looking at, but are clearly there in the genes, waiting to be expressed further on down the line. That means that perhaps you're breeding intelligence, but you're also unawares breeding, for example, haemophilia.
edonnelly wrote:Again, this would be the advantage of cloning over multi-generational breeding. It wouldn't matter if your subject had an unexpressed recessive trait, because it would also go unexpressed in the clones. Now, there are dominant genes with variable penetrance, but likely that phenomenon is related to the underlying (and poorly understood) genetics as well, so it is unlikely to be an issue. In fact, it doesn't matter how complex the underlying genetics of a particular phenotype (say blue eyes) is, because the entire collection of genes will be the same in the clone.
And, CC, "without overwhelming benefit"? The ability to increase the number of great people in the world is just about one of the most overwhelming benefits I can think of.
Laurent wrote:Same "DNA", proteins, and bla-bla-bla, yes. But it is known that nutrition has a big influence on one's development, and I'm not even speaking about experience, conditioning, the environment in which a baby was born (a clone of Einstein, born in certain conditions, could be a total dumbass), etc.
edonnelly wrote:Eureka wrote:Clones would not be more obedient than other humans
Clones in general, no. The idea is to find an individual with a genetic trait that has the characteristics (perhaps obedience) that you desire. Thus, the clones of this individual would express that genetic trait at much higher frequency than the general population.Eureka wrote:and there is no reason at all why clones would be the property of their cloners. Are all people the possessions of their parents?
I would assume that it would only be the government of a rogue nation that would undertake such a nazi-style project, so yes, both the clones as well as non-cloned individuals would effectively be the "property" of their "parents" (government).
nostos wrote:That's the major fallacy with Eugenics: they thought that we could get certain characteristics to repeat in later generations. This is true, but drastically oversimplified; it takes no account of the myriad phenotypes which are not expressed in the specimen you're looking at, but are clearly there in the genes, waiting to be expressed further on down the line. That means that perhaps you're breeding intelligence, but you're also unawares breeding, for example, haemophilia. These examples are exagerated, but the basic, subtler, idea is in these examples.
primitive wrote: Why clone people when people can be born naturally? (and for a much less cost!) If, say, you took the genetics of Albert Einstein and cloned him 20 times, you would have 20 exact copies of Einstein. The original Einstein was as smart as he was because he was brought up in such a way that resulted in genius. These 20 other Einsteins would have to have a life extremely close to the life of the real Einstein to be just like the real Einstein. People are made, not born. If this is not done, you have 20 ordinary human beings that happen to have the genetic code of Einstein. In order to increase the number of great people in the world, I think educational facilities would work well.
This is a serious issue. I don't think we need that on this thread.Bardo de Saldo wrote:I didn't know there was a shortage of cheap labor or cannon fodder! The future of cloning lies on spare body parts! I propose that every new baby should be cloned! We would have to lobotomize the new"born" clones, of course, to deal with any ethical issues! As soon as the clones could walk, we would hook them up to a tread-mill that powers the house, to give them exercise and have them earn their keep! We would make them Vegetarian, needless to say, to keep them healthy and spiritual! Have you lost an arm, a leg, an ear, an eye? There's your clone-bro to keep you revictualed! By the time they reached 50, our clones would look like Lord Nelson! At that time, we would put them to pasture on our back yards, saving us from mowing the lawn! When we died, we would chop them up for feed to subsidize our young clones' diet! Then our young clones would get mad-clone desease, which would save us the lobotomy! I'm so excited!
Eureka wrote:That's true, but whether or not we clone any people at all in our western countries will have no effect on whether the Chinese clone an army of supersoldiers out in the Gobi desert.
Super-soldiers story from news.com.au wrote:US military experts are attempting to create an army of super-human soldiers who will be more intelligent and deadly thanks to a microchip implanted in their brains.
nostos wrote:What more could I expect of the US military?
edonnelly wrote:To Peter & Bardo -- maybe you should be working on cloning Pamela Anderson's plastic surgeon (or at least his hands/brains). Though I'm not exactly sure what Peter meant by "clone."
PeterD wrote:edonnelly wrote:To Peter & Bardo -- maybe you should be working on cloning Pamela Anderson's plastic surgeon (or at least his hands/brains). Though I'm not exactly sure what Peter meant by "clone."
It was all in jest.Then, my wife saw it and she did not find it so funny.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests