If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Human Cloning
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Human Cloning
Ok, Human Cloning what are your thoughts?
I am not particulalry well informed on this matter but personally......
Firstly for me what makes us 'special' is that we are all unique and different, we all have different DNA..... Maybe SOME things are meant to happen by nature and we shouldn't just mess around it. We can't just go along and make our own rules as we go along, we can't control everything!
And how do you think it would effect the 'clone' psychologically?
I can obviously see the benefits of cloning, in terms of medical advancement and yes the world be a better place if premature death, depression, etc. was far less common, but at what price?
Disscus?
0
Comments
Clone away.
so far our science has shown us we can mess about and manipulate. we can be very clever and creative. but our science shows me we can control buggar all ! our science, for all its ingenuity has done little or nothing to seriously improve life for the majority of people on this planet. our inventions and manipulations bite back everytime. as for cloning humans, it just cheapens human life more and more. we are becoming just another product on a shelf. so far all cloned creatures die prematurely. in pain. were now going to inflict our science directly on an inocent child.
if they can pull it off we'll be able to clone armies who know no fear, have no feelings, don't understand love and compassion.
great aye !
Your talking about science as if it was a separate entity, science is just a tool we control how we use it. You don't think science has improved life for us? Would you be willing to exchange places with someone who lived in the middle ages? You wouldn't be having this debate but for science. In the western world at least life expectancy, child mortality, work conditions, tolerance, entertainment, average wage, all have vastly increased compared to say two hundred years ago.
As for cloning i don't really know enough about it to make a decision. The argument against it on moral grounds has always seemed a little weak to me considering the amount we play about with the bodies nature gave us anyway with things like transplants.
Originally posted by morrocan roll
so far our science has shown us we can mess about and manipulate. we can be very clever and creative. but our science shows me we can control buggar all ! our science, for all its ingenuity has done little or nothing to seriously improve life for the majority of people on this planet. our inventions and manipulations bite back everytime.
Your talking about science as if it was a separate entity, science is just a tool we control how we use it. You don't think science has improved life for us? Would you be willing to exchange places with someone who lived in the middle ages? You wouldn't be having this debate but for science. In the western world at least life expectancy, child mortality, work conditions, tolerance, entertainment, average wage, all have vastly increased compared to say two hundred years ago.
__________________
has done little or nothing to seriously improve life for the majority of people on this planet. please notice the word MAJORITY.
the life expectancy issue has recently been shown to be a myth.
yes there are periods in our history where it has plummeted alarmingly. we are now back to where people were a thousand years ago. trouble now though is my aunty should be dead but our science is keeping her alive in pain and confusion. extended life with no quality. good health and education for a few on the planet. modern transport for a few. millions upon millions are facing starvation. millions upon millions are facing epidemics, of aids, cancers and older deieases are reapearing. the world health authority is alarmed that we are ill equipped even in the west to stem this tide...because our science can now transport plants and people instantly around the globe. they talk about when not maybe. we have telly and internet etc....we the few. all the world can't possibly be alowed to have access to this doddgy science ! can you imagine all the people of the world having cars ? we'd have choked the world long ago. same with plastics, metals, electricity. all our manufacturing processes, from paint to medicine polutes. we cant have the whole world behaving like we do.
it is a very doddgy and threatening science and technology we have. the benefits seem to be very small and short lived compared to the cost. are you saying people of the past were mostly unhappier and less caring about each other than us techno folk ?
I have never heard this theory on life expectancy but i can assure you that a thousand years ago people did not have the same life expectancy as we did, then you would have been lucky to live to 40. A thousand years ago you would have William the conqueror's invasion of England to look forward to in 64 years (which you wouldn't see because you wouldn't have lived that long). A thousand years ago if you had a headache your doctor would have prescribed a hole in the head to release the bad spirits. Modern medicine has done wonders to improve our lives, a thousand years ago you had two ends of the scale, the majority were peasants who lived in squalor, suffered from diseases and malnutrition regularly. Then you had the aristocracy that although wealthy suffered from diseases regulary and although had plenty to eat had no idea of the different food groups so offered suffered from lack of fibre in their diet.
The fact is we take health for granted compared to people back then. If one person from a thousand years ago could meet you or me they would be shocked at our appearance because we (without making to many assumptions about you
While i obviously sympathise here but this is one example against compared to millions for. How many people are saved from modern medicine, through vacination? My best friend was recently in a car accident and he would be dead right now if it wasn't for modern medicine. You can't put a price on someone having a second chance. We now get over illnesses that in the past would have killed us. Imagine what life would be like were it not for modern medicine? How many of us would be alive to contribute to this board?
I recognise the fact that there are many less developed countries who do not have the benefits we do. Still you are overstating the case, millions to few? What about the couple of hundred million people living in Europe? One hundred and twenty million in America? Japan? You don't think those people represent a substantial part of the worlds population?
Those in poorer nations, your solution is to protect them from the evils of technology? I'm sorry but are you kidding? Compare the quality of your life against one of theirs? Now whatever hardships you may or may not have been through i very much doubt it could be worse than many of their plights, war, famine, disease (which for the most part western medicine, in sufficient quantity could cure, things like tuberculosis, meningitis).
But science isn't all about manufacturing. What about homes with central heating? What about education on areas of health such as healthy diets or dangers of unprotected sex? Its very easy to sit in our comfortable and heated home, typing on our nice computer after having a filling breakfast and then say that we can't allow other nations modern benefits. You offer anyone in a lesser developed nation to swap places with you and i wonder what the result would be. It is far better that these nations should have the benefit of our modern technology (with its extensive pollution reduction methods) than figure things out for themselves like we did and pollute on a much larger scale.
Fuck yeah! Ever gone round to your neighbours and smashed his face in with a mace and chain so you can have his land? Will you have to toil on a meager bit of land for six and a half days a week, every week of your life just to exist? Do you burn strange women at the stake for being a witch? Were you working from the age of 10? Do you suffer from one illness or another for pretty much the whole of your life.
I admit that technology isn't all great but your glossing over a huge amount of its benefits. The fact is a large amount of the worlds population have immeasurable better lives than our counterparts one thousand years ago. Of course we are happier, we have more individual wealth for luxuries, we live long lives, we're well sheltered, we have a huge amount of leisure time within which we get to spend time with people we care about. You can't compare the quality of our lives to that of those a thousand years ago.
and by curing people with medicine and healing them you're allowing the weak to survive and pass on their weak genes. Humans need cloning and genetic manipulation to stay alive and make sure we don't devolve into sludge, ok maybe not sludge...
the gaurdian newspaper not so long back reported on recent research about lifespans. in roman europe 75 and 80yrs old was not an exception. the people were not walking around in rags and scabs...on the whole. slaves building the pyramids five thousand years ago has now been debunked. research has shown through excavation that for a society to take on the task of building something that takes 60/70 yrs involved a huge education system, producing draughtsmen, engineers, stone masons, architects, planners, designers, artisists and musicians.
an extremely well fed, healthy and educated world. with a lifespan of 60/65 yrs. it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that our science has lifted us from a swamp of malnutrition and disease. in lots of ways it has improved lives...that is rather obvious. the first two hundred yrs of the industrial revolution blighted the health of the lower classes in as devastating a way as the great plagues of europe. we have lifted ourselves up once again only to be faced with massive ecological and social problems never before seen. dont make the mistake of turning our science into a god. then having blind faith in that god.
I was pointing out that the benefits are not small.
I have never read this theory so i can't really comment on it, i do have this quote from a history book (sorry its from an old paper and i did not include a footnote so i don't know what book):
"In Rome in the first century the average life expectancy was around 30 years of age. During that time, the development of medicine and public health was very slow, and its efficacy enormously limited. Remedies were known for some diseases, and surgery could solve more or less cruelly some others. However, an extension in life expectancy was not achieved."
Which source is more reliable i have no idea *shrug* however, one thousand years ago the average life expectancy was around 30 (I can reliably state this sinse one of my current modules is medieval history and i recently had a very extensive lecture about medicine in this period of time
Why was the theory of slaves building the pyramids debunked? I have never heard of this (btw that is genuine curisoity not sarcasm). I still don't see your point as what are engineers, stone masons, planners and designers if not products of scientific learning? The pyramids could not be built without science, are they then a bad thing? Or am I completley missing your point
Again i have little knowledge of this time period but you are still ignoring the plight of slaves at the very least. I find it hard to believe that the common people of egypt lived to that age considering they regularly had to deal with flooding by the Nile, war and droubt not to mention the fact that the lack of efficient farming methods meant that their lives were substistence based.
It isn't a trap, to repeat your own example of 1000 years ago, people were living in a swamp of malnutrition and disease and did so for many hundreds of years.
Your words, thats why i'm in this debate.
No it didn't, that is a massive exageration and is simply not true. People were not dying in the streets, direct quote taken from North Park University web site:
"The Black Death, the most severe epidemic in human history, ravaged Europe from 1347-1351. This plague killed entire families at a time and destroyed at least 1,000 villages. Greatly contributing to the Crisis of the Fourteenth Century, the Black Death had many effects beyond its immediate symptoms. Not only did the Black Death take a devastating toll on human life, but it also played a major role in shaping European life in the years following."
How can you suggest that the industrial revolution had even a comparable effect to that? What entire families were killed by the industrial revolution? Was their a resulting labour shortage as there was after the black death or did labour flourish to transform this nation?
We are a species that has always damaged the environment and has always progressed through science. Our history is marked throughout every age by scientic discoveries, from fire and the wheel to electricity and the nuclear bomb. Any civilisation that you try to use as an example against my arguments will have benefited from science itself. The scale of our damage on the environment is also a reflection on the size of human population, science the means of supporting that population. Our ancestors harmed the environment as well, just on a smaller scale and in ways that reflected their smaller population sizes. Humanity has always been affected by social problems, don't blame science for that, that is our fault and our fault only.
Do not make the mistake of blaming science for humanities wrongs. Its a very easy scapegoat sinse it can't reply, science is a tool, WE are responcible for the consequences of the way we use that tool. We are a species that has always damaged the environment and has always progressed through science.
course we are happier, we have more individual wealth for luxuries,
o
thats a very shallow argument for happiness. explain to me then the massive rise in self harming, depression, addiction, bulimia, anorexia and suicide in young afluent western societies ?
your almost saying that science brings happiness !
that only material wealth and gadgets bring happiness.
i would think the western worlds population is suffering a massive overload of stress and fear. hence this alarming rise in despair and lonliness in the young.
the god you are putting your faith in is not a reliable god.
do you understand the difference between pleasure and happiness ?
Your not quoting me properly, did i suggest that was the only contributing factor to happiness? No, its just, a contributing factor and not the only factor. Are you telling me you buy no luxuries? That you take no joy from them? Do you never buy music or films? The computer and the internet your arguing with me on must be a source of some joy or else why bother spending your luxury time on here?
How can you possibly know if there has been a massive rise in these afflictions? What you mean is there is a greater recognition of these things, which is due to science. It is science that has highlighted these problems, there is no documentation of these problems in the recent past because they were not recognised problems. May i suggest in the case of suicide that society places less importance on religion (which condemns those who commit suicide to hell) than it used to.
Depression in the past cannot be measured against the future because as i have said it was not a recognised problem so there is no documentation. I would think, though, that the impoversihed, toothless, overworked peasant (who by the way might have had to let his lord have sex with his wife before his marriage night) is not the life and soul of the party.
Anorexia and bulimia are not the result of science, they are the result of society and the emphasis that society places on fashion
Addiction, again a problem with society more than science and although it is due to science that its supply is more widespread it is hardly sciences fault that there is such a demand for it.
What direct impact has science had on this overwhelming epidemic of stress and fear you talk about? Stress is another problem that has been recognised by science and again i don't think many people in our world are more stressed than our medieval peasant.
I think you are blaming societies problems on science. Science has improved our life, society abuses it.
you agree that life in rome was probably good but life in the colonies wasn't so good. so what has changed with our great science and technology ?life is wonderful for most in the west but in the colonies and sweatshops of the world that we exploit, it isn't. so science hasn't changed things for the majority then.
the poverty and disease and ignorance and rags and boils still surround us ? in fact our science, technology and great educational enlightenment, along with that elusive thing called democracy has created even more missery and disease and despair than ever ! no...not because the population is bigger but because our ability to rob, extract, mislead and not care a shit has increased dramaticaly. our science and technology is ever more commercialy driven and corrupt. our hunger for more and more and more is creating greater and greater missery. THAT IS A FACT. if we want fitted carpets and mobile phones and flash motors, it has to be at the expense of the quality of life for ever growing millions. you do actualy believe that our planet is becoming better fed, better educated, safer etc, through OUR science and technology dont you. despite all the evidence around you.
Firstly i did not agree that life in Rome was good, i provided some evidence that suggested the contrary. I didn't mention the colonies but incidentaly life for them was incredibly hard.
Yes i do actualy believe that our planet is becoming better fed, better educated and safer through our science and technology. Everyone i know is well fed, educated to at least the age of 16 years old and hasn't suffered from the plague. Those people on the planet that don't get these benefits are the areas that don't have the benefits of modern science.
If those areas of the world that have modern up-to-date science = well fed, well educated and safe
and those areas of the world that don't have modern science = starving, poorly educated and often in danger of their lives
then what is the logical conclusion? Surely that science is a benefit.
Humans have always been greedy and corrupt, this is not a recent phenomena. King John I had something like 95% of England's coinage in his coffers, is this not greed? If you take away science people will still be greedy, people will still exploit others therefore it cannot be science's fault. People use science as a tool to perpetrate these corruptions but science is not a separate entity, on its own it cannot hurt people, it is peoples abuse of it which is evil and corrupt. It is humanity not science that needs to change.
No it is not a fact. We are commercially driven and greedy science can't be, science is just our understanding and education.
The fact is science does no harm. What so ever. We are the ones that cause harm. Science is the modern day axe - an axe can be used to kill an innocent or to chop wood to shelter and warm people. The axe cannot be corrupt it is up to the person who wields the axe what pupose he uses it for.
ack! its not as good as the original but am very tired and hopefully it gets my point accross.
giving me plenty to think about !i'll get back tomorrow to this.
our understandingf of the past ids changing dranaticly...i'm out of it...thanks for being petient juk. I'LL BE BACK..............
Theres a lot of debate on it but what does it actually lead to.
I think M.Roll is right in many ways. We in the west are looking to develop such high-tech when we have failed to provide adequate protection against diseases that are easy to cure for many people. We should deal witht the basics before zipping ahead so far.......
the egyptians who built the pyramids had a very varied diet of potatoes, rice garlic meat spices veg beer etc. even the bibles stories about the israelites fleeing egypt has them complaining to moses of thier new hardships. reffering back to thier easy life under egyptian rule where they had plenty of lamb and veg and garlic etc.
as for my mistrust of our science and reffering to it as dodgy science i concede that we get great benefits but...always at a cost. it always bites back. our science has enabled us to catch fish on a scale never dreamed of. now a third of all life in the sea has gone. the common cod may now have been overfished to a point of soon becoming extinct. our science is turning even the oceans into a desert.
Too often we look at the short-term and this causes problems as highlighted by M.Rolls fish example, would there be long term disadvantages that would out weigh any short term gains from human cloning?
Exactly.
My argument with your case Mr. Roll is more basic than what science has or hasn't done. Science is just a part of us, its our standard of learning and advancement, its our discoveries and its the curiosity in humanity that is forever attempting to explain the world around us. With your fish example, yes it is science that provided the tool with which to do this but it is man's greed that chose to use that tool in the way that it has been used.
My basic point is that it is humanity's greed and corruption that enables these sins and that science is just a tool for this corruption. When used responsibly science is a gift.
As to human cloning, it is possible (although i'm not sure i believe it) that this is another process of evolution. That we have advanced to the point where the future and success of our species is now in our own hands rather than nature's.
that i believe is the crux of the matter.
In that case we do agree, lets go and get a pint....oh hang on a sec thats not what i meant to say
Yeah i think we do agree, we just expressed it in different ways, i have no faith in humanity and you have no faith in humanity's ability to responcibly use science.