Cloning Good or Bad?

I see this as one of the benefits of cloning. Normally when you get transplants, you have to get the organ or whatever that is most compatible with your body otherwise it'll reject it but still faced with that possibility. With cloning, the rejection possibility is taken out because it's your organ. Your body won't reject something of its own.

Not only were people waiting for transplant donors to die, but if their body rejects the organ in the end, then your basically screwed. Even if you get a donor from your own family, you can still be rejected. I've watched from somewhere where this lady got a kidney transplant from her aunt but after 2 months, the lady's body rejected it. There's just a lot of risks and bad outcomes involved.

well, i did mention the probable possibility of adding some limiters to their brains so they dont develop higher consciousness than a dog or something of the likes, basically, they wouldnt be human, they d be genetically altered humans...humanoids.

about the economics question, is really everyone entitled to a job? where does it say so? sure there is a right to work, but there is no guarantee to work. personally i m all in favour of letting "natural selection" (and by that i mean market mechanisms) have its way. besides, what kind of jobs are dog minded humanoids threatening anyway?

and a couple of decades later its a brave new world where not only the goods we consume are mass produced, but the consumers and producers themselves.

doesnt sound all that bad to me...

lets just say that i hate morality standing in the way of progress, whatever that progress may be.


one more thing. i doubt that you could clone organs without any form of brain, at least some basic parts of the CNS should be available, otherwise the thing wont grow right. probably...

By functioning brain, I meant one that is capable of desires and thinking intelligently. Who wants a clone that screams OMGWTFBBQ when you take its organs? Thats why I suggest cloning them with the simplest of simple brains; one that is capable of basic functions and basic needs.

Nobody said you can't make a retarded clone.
Thats my PoV anyway. Its not as cruel as you imagine.

we re on the same page then. and i should stop reading sentences too literally, especially when they are crossed out.

It's not about having a right or guarantee to work or anything like that. It's just the way the world works. If you create a mass of clones that can do all janitorial or fast-food jobs, then you're taking away the jobs of a lot of people. When the unemployment rate goes up, the society tends to suffer, quite a lot. It's not like we could make a bunch of clones in an already overpopulated world and not have any negative consequences.

And if we were going to make clones with the minds of dogs, what kind of jobs could we even have them do? It's not like the old days; when buildings are made, there aren't just a bunch of brain-dead idiots carrying heavy stuff from point A to point B. We're not building pyramids with slaves who push blocks and get whipped, and that's all. Even if we replaced the people who did dangerous jobs, such as coal miners, with clones, what would the coal miners do? Just starve because there are clones to do the jobs? If that's acceptable, then why not just shoot all the people who perhaps aren't needed? Because that'd be inhumane and would create a horrible society.

Also, since it seems that you brought up Brave New World, you do realize that book was a warning, right? The world described in the book is supposed to be bad.

First, I should say I haven't read much of the argument yet, but plan to.

Now, I want to point out to everyone that Clones of Humans are VERY bad:

1.They would cost money no one could really afford to spend, considering how much is spent on unecessary things as it is. No country needs to waste money on this.

2.If Clones were made for just the Organs, that's fine until it turns out that they need to be alive first, then everyone wants to "Save the clones!" How needless and pointless and full of Migraines.

3.They would (Assuming you give them intelligence) end up free, thanks to all the people on their side for freedom.

4.It would cause something called "The Clone Wars", in the sense that if it works, then you're now sending in soldiers that don't have families and friends to worry for, and so you can send them in without a care, right? Wrong. The enemy will eventually get it as well. And what's to stop our enemies from getting it first? Hell, clones would cause a hell of a lot of trouble in a war sense.

5.It's unnatural, and simply wrong.

6.Not a single Religous belief agrees with the idea of Clones being good, which would also cause a problem of war against clones. Though it would give the world a chance to finally split in two, which means one side would win, if you think it'd work out. I don't, personally. Especially if it's the religious side that wins. They'd remember their seperate beliefs and the world would be the same as before.

There's more, I just can't think of it off the top of my head.

so what? sure the unemployment rate goes up and lots of dissent and drama ensues but you can use your dog soldiers to hold them at bay. besides, i m sure we can upgrade them a little and not only make clones but turn them into cyborgs instead. now they can have the basic consciousness of a dog but the processing power of a supercomputer.
of course it would have negative consequences, the question remains wether they outdo the positive ones. i dont think so. you see, if you actually have an interchangeable work force you can soon start with running some big projects again, i m not talking pyramids here, but space colonization instead. send the clones! or if it takes more than a lifetime in getting somewhere, you ll have the clones produced on location.

and yeah, elements that cant cope with a changing world are bound to die, thats been the way of evolution since the first cellular organisms. i mean, obviously it would have to be reglemented. those currently under employ are in no fear (if regulated thusly), this industry would simply no longer be open for new human reqruits, its called natural fluctuation iirc.

and of course the book is meant as a warning of the dehumanization due to industrialization, we have it anyway.
besides, i dont believe in bad or good. there are simply different consequences and i for one favour sacrificing a million to save a billion.

If clones/cyborgs have more brain power than humans, then aren't they humans, or better than humans? I doubt we could use them as disposable bodies at that point.

And if we're going to colonize space, we need more money and technology to do so. If we're going to create clones to get that technology, we won't be replacing any jobs. New jobs, specifically for the super-smart clones, would be created. But then, what we'd have more people (unless we just killed all the clones), and though we could move some into space, wouldn't the clones feel that they have a right to space? Or maybe the clones would want the earth, and no one would want to live in space. Then we're living in a Gundam series, with clones and humans fighting each other.

The point is, if we create clones with small brains, they won't be able to do anything of consequence; clones with regular brains would take the jobs of regular people (and ruin the economy and country); and clones with huge brains would probably want to take over humanity.

Isn't life complex enough when it's just humans and animals? Why add one more thing to the mix?

i said they d have more processing power, not more brain power.
besides, so far computers arent capable of programming themselves so there is little chance of them suddenly revolting.

the most expensive stuff nowadays isnt material but labor. but yeah, we obviously need more technology. my bet is allowing cloning research would actually render more technology (although in another field)
and again, the cyborgs wouldnt be smarter than us, at least not in an independent way. they could pretty much do what you told (programmed) them to, but probably little else (especially the first couple of generations).
and again, if they are basically programs they wont feel that they have a right to anything, not the earth, not space.

but of course there is a possibility that someday in the far off future when i m not alive anymore anyway that the clones might actually become better than us (even with our best of efforts to keep them down) and overthrow us and to that i say: if that happens, well, then they deserved it.
after all, they were clearly the more succesful species and i d prefer leaving the field to them rather than to mutant cockroaches.

we should be proud of them if they accomplish that. like you should be proud of your sons when (if) they eventually surpass you.

and life will never be complex enough to stop evolving. and why add more to the mix? because thats what life is all about.

You'd have to be a multi billionaire, and unless I'm wrong, clones would need time to grow.

So I'm guessing you'd have died of old age by the time you clones are old enough,Because your parents aren't going to clone an army for you since child birth.

But yes, identity theft would be a problem.