Written by [user id=24489] on 28.08.2007 at 04:00

Written by [user id=24489] on 28.08.2007 at 03:59

Written by Hyvaarin on 28.08.2007 at 03:52

Written by [user id=24489] on 27.08.2007 at 18:26

Written by Hyvaarin on 27.08.2007 at 17:35

Written by [user id=24489] on 26.08.2007 at 05:01

...cloning is wrong because it is doing something that is unnatural to life's circle.

An absolute fuckload of stuff we do is "unnatural to life's cycle", but we do it anyway.

No, you are just putting words in my mouth because you are interpreting something completely wrong.

Obviously..but this discussion is about cloning.

You completely missed my point. If you have no qualms about other stuff that is "unnatural to life's cycle", but are against cloning because of this reason, it's either not the real reason you're against cloning or your opinion is massively inconsistent.

No; I didn't. You are putting words in my mouth because you interpreted what I said completely wrong.

I think what you meant to say was pretty obvious, but seeing as my interpretation is so far off, would you care to clarify your "point"?

Written by Hyvaarin on 28.08.2007 at 04:22

Written by [user id=24489] on 28.08.2007 at 04:00

Written by [user id=24489] on 28.08.2007 at 03:59

Written by Hyvaarin on 28.08.2007 at 03:52

Written by [user id=24489] on 27.08.2007 at 18:26

Written by Hyvaarin on 27.08.2007 at 17:35

Written by [user id=24489] on 26.08.2007 at 05:01

...cloning is wrong because it is doing something that is unnatural to life's circle.

An absolute fuckload of stuff we do is "unnatural to life's cycle", but we do it anyway.

No, you are just putting words in my mouth because you are interpreting something completely wrong.

Obviously..but this discussion is about cloning.

You completely missed my point. If you have no qualms about other stuff that is "unnatural to life's cycle", but are against cloning because of this reason, it's either not the real reason you're against cloning or your opinion is massively inconsistent.

No; I didn't. You are putting words in my mouth because you interpreted what I said completely wrong.

I think what you meant to say was pretty obvious, but seeing as my interpretation is so far off, would you care to clarify your "point"?

Not really; no. Sorry

Written by [user id=24489] on 28.08.2007 at 04:41

Written by Hyvaarin on 28.08.2007 at 04:22

I think what you meant to say was pretty obvious, but seeing as my interpretation is so far off, would you care to clarify your "point"?

Not really; no. Sorry

Well then seriously, I'm gonna assume that you're forfeiting this argument. All you've done is shift the goalposts.

Written by Icewings on 10.03.2007 at 07:43

I heard something new , I heard they have discovered the gene of age !!! so they explained if they take it away people would be ageless

well, if you wanna die, or you gotta die, or you just fucking die of something else than old age, it's all the same to me.

cloning and genetic engineering can be dangerous but it has it's rewards like immunity to diseases and stuff

well, like most things, it has a good and bad aspects. It will be good for cloning plants and farm animals for food, that will end the world hunger problem. But the other side, is cloning people. That is just bad since then government will start cloning people like crazy. Since the clones have a more accelerated rate of growth, there will be a lot of new and capacitated workers, more economy, more soldiers for wars and etc.. and the world will become more chaotic than it is now. My point: clonation is good as long as humans are not cloned

Written by juliocb on 05.10.2007 at 03:44

well, like most things, it has a good and bad aspects. It will be good for cloning plants and farm animals for food, that will end the world hunger problem. But the other side, is cloning people. That is just bad since then government will start cloning people like crazy. Since the clones have a more accelerated rate of growth, there will be a lot of new and capacitated workers, more economy, more soldiers for wars and etc.. and the world will become more chaotic than it is now. My point: clonation is good as long as humans are not cloned

but what about human organs?? why is it illegal to clone those??

Quote:

Written by baldur on 07.10.2007 at 19:42

but what about human organs?? why is it illegal to clone those??

I forgot to mention human organs XD, well, I think it will be good to clone a healthy kidney to help someone, but what I am arguing as wrong is cloning human beings as individuals.

I disagree about cloning humans, it's just not right. But for animals I think it's OK, it makes better the quality of teh cattle through genetical mainuplation, a d thanks to clonning, now it's not completely necessary to loose for example a champion cow that produces good milk for example. Also clonning makes meat healthier for human consumption, it's better. About human organs, well i think it's OK if it's forsaving someone's life, but only a n organ, not a complete human being. Damn it would be scary to see little me running and screaming and that kinda stuf... *shivers*

im against it because i dont think we need humans that were not born the natural way..... i think thats just stupid and to be honest, i think if we do things like that we are fucking up the world more, we dont need more extreamly unnatural things.... :

Written by [user id=33845] on 02.08.2008 at 07:48

im against it because i dont think we need humans that were not born the natural way..... i think thats just stupid and to be honest, i think if we do things like that we are fucking up the world more, we dont need more extreamly unnatural things.... :

I agree that we have already enough people on this world to destroy it, we don't need more of them on a unnatural way.

Overall I find it difficult to find my position in this. Cloning of organs has something positive, but also some bad things. I think I am not a big fan of cloning anyway. This world isn't perfect and will not be made perfect.

personally i'm also against cloning, but for a different reason:

on the short term having superhumans (if we clone people it's quite logical that we clone the best ones of course) could be great. but in the long term humans are still humans and the superhumans will supress the normal ones and that wouldn't keep the original human species alive.

People who say cloning is unnatural...

Going to a doctor when ill is also unnatural, or wearing glasses etc.

Written by [user id=23805] on 22.08.2008 at 21:40

Written by [user id=30512] on 07.08.2008 at 21:19

Written by [user id=33845] on 02.08.2008 at 07:48

im against it because i dont think we need humans that were not born the natural way..... i think thats just stupid and to be honest, i think if we do things like that we are fucking up the world more, we dont need more extreamly unnatural things.... :

I agree that we have already enough people on this world to destroy it, we don't need more of them on a unnatural way.

Overall I find it difficult to find my position in this. Cloning of organs has something positive, but also some bad things. I think I am not a big fan of cloning anyway. This world isn't perfect and will not be made perfect.

The cloning of organs for medical facilities should be all it takes to end an argument against cloning. What "bad things" (you give no example) could possibly outweigh the benefits of bypassing the need for organ donors? You say there's already enough people on this planet and we don't need another source of population growth, but how fast of a process do you think cloning is?

I'm hoping someday the number of people expressing baseless opinions opposing things they know nothing about, will dwindle (not die, just change their minds) and make room for more progressive thinking, so that eventually we may not even have to worry about filling up our planet. I'm talking about the distant hopeful future of colonizing other planets. We could do it. Just gotta stop preventing progression with ideas that suggest anything man made is unnatural and therefore bad.

Come on, what you state is useless and not productive. If you cannot understand the difference between a joke and a serious comment, please, at least don't bash others.

Cloning of organs has something possitive, as you said there could be a time that there is no longer need for donors, but has negatives effects also. It raises the risk for cancer for example. That is just a medical problem. But there are also ethical issues.

And I find it dangerous that you lift up the more progressive thing above the regressive thinking on such a strong way. If you think about colonizing new planets (which isn't very new really, as 400 years there was already being talked about colonizing new worlds, which is a disaster) and calling this a hopefull future. Mankind is able to do it in the future, but this will not make it better for mankind at all. Only the happy few will have any profit at all. I am a progressive thinker, yes, but there is need to be carefull in this issues, more than on other issues. If we look at our past there is only one reaction possible: No more colonizing please!

Written by [user id=23805] on 23.08.2008 at 23:33

I don't claim to know the details about cloning, but I'm definitely not against finding out. There are always going to be risks. Clone away and we'll smooth out the kinks.

Ethical issues are bullshit as you you can't pick one ethical stance that will satisfy everyone. Best let everyone do what they want to do with the exception that their antics don't interfere with anyone else's personal freedoms.

Aei Ontos: "And I find it dangerous that you lift up the more progressive thing above the regressive thinking on such a strong way."

Pfff!

When you are pro cloning it is a good thing that it is questioned. Even if cloning would be a good thing it is absolutely needed that it happens with the best procedures that are best for all, especially foor the cloned ones and for the donors. So, just testing and look where it ends is not a good thing in my eyes. It is a fair question.

Written by [user id=23805] on 24.08.2008 at 20:30

Written by [user id=30512] on 24.08.2008 at 19:02

Written by [user id=23805] on 23.08.2008 at 23:33

I don't claim to know the details about cloning, but I'm definitely not against finding out. There are always going to be risks. Clone away and we'll smooth out the kinks.

Ethical issues are bullshit as you you can't pick one ethical stance that will satisfy everyone. Best let everyone do what they want to do with the exception that their antics don't interfere with anyone else's personal freedoms.

Aei Ontos: "And I find it dangerous that you lift up the more progressive thing above the regressive thinking on such a strong way."

Pfff!

When you are pro cloning it is a good thing that it is questioned. Even if cloning would be a good thing it is absolutely needed that it happens with the best procedures that are best for all, especially foor the cloned ones and for the donors. So, just testing and look where it ends is not a good thing in my eyes. It is a fair question.

This is exactly what I argue against. The fear that everything will going wrong. Certainly not everything will go right, but we're not playing with nuclear weapons here. It's cloning for crying loud! Give it a try scientists! At the most we'll be disturbed.

At most the world will go down. So what! I don't mind about the world going down, I just mind about good or wrong. Better have nuclear weapons than cloned superhumans, because nuclear weapons are less destructable.

i am pro-cloning as long as this should be controlled by some kind of international organization, there is always the possibility that some insane dude somewhere genetically engineers babies to be super-strong and think/do violent stuff.

but since that possibility is very slim, i will remain against cloning.

I dont like the idea of cloning Humans and Animals because its just not natural. Why would humans need to be cloned anyway? Why not clone endangered species of animals and bring their numbers back up. For medical purposes its good but not for making double ups of living creatures.

Written by Oracle on 26.08.2008 at 10:49

I dont like the idea of cloning Humans and Animals because its just not natural.

Getting glasses for reduced eyesight is also not natural. Getting medicine when you're sick is also not natural. Using tampons as a girl is also not natural

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 26.08.2008 at 16:07

Written by Oracle on 26.08.2008 at 10:49

I dont like the idea of cloning Humans and Animals because its just not natural.

Getting glasses for reduced eyesight is also not natural. Getting medicine when you're sick is also not natural. Using tampons as a girl is also not natural

haha you make me laugh! You actually have a point but those things are designed for helping humans. Yes cloning can possibly help humans and animals too but it just doesnt seem right IMO.

Written by Oracle on 26.08.2008 at 16:19

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 26.08.2008 at 16:07

Written by Oracle on 26.08.2008 at 10:49

I dont like the idea of cloning Humans and Animals because its just not natural.

Getting glasses for reduced eyesight is also not natural. Getting medicine when you're sick is also not natural. Using tampons as a girl is also not natural

haha you make me laugh! You actually have a point but those things are designed for helping humans. Yes cloning can possibly help humans and animals too but it just doesnt seem right IMO.

Well, all those things I mentioned when they were used at first also weren't deemed right. And look at how we view them now. CLoning doesn't seem right to loads of people... yet. Give it a long time and then it will be regarded just as we regard glasses, tampons, medicine etc. now. People just have to get used to the idea, that's it.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 26.08.2008 at 16:22

Written by Oracle on 26.08.2008 at 16:19

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 26.08.2008 at 16:07

Written by Oracle on 26.08.2008 at 10:49

I dont like the idea of cloning Humans and Animals because its just not natural.

Getting glasses for reduced eyesight is also not natural. Getting medicine when you're sick is also not natural. Using tampons as a girl is also not natural

haha you make me laugh! You actually have a point but those things are designed for helping humans. Yes cloning can possibly help humans and animals too but it just doesnt seem right IMO.

Well, all those things I mentioned when they were used at first also weren't deemed right. And look at how we view them now. CLoning doesn't seem right to loads of people... yet. Give it a long time and then it will be regarded just as we regard glasses, tampons, medicine etc. now. People just have to get used to the idea, that's it.

Yes i know what you are saying . Yes its probably that im not used to the idea of cloning is why i dont think its right. I wasnt actually saying cloning was a bad thing, I mean for medical use it could help save lives. Ill just have to give it a bit more time before i can accept the idea of cloning better

Problem is that people think that cloning can be used to make one on one replicas of people or animals. Where in fact that is impossible. Cause people's and animal's actions are mainly determined by the way they are raised and what they see around them.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 26.08.2008 at 16:36

Problem is that people think that cloning can be used to make one on one replicas of people or animals. Where in fact that is impossible. Cause people's and animal's actions are mainly determined by the way they are raised and what they see around them.

Haha thats exactly why i didnt like the idea because when i think cloning, i think of replicas of humans and animals. I didnt know it was impossible until now. I learnt something new today because of you
I might come to accept it more now

Well, I don't know if any of you have seen what they have been doing with crops and such for a very very very vry long time? The crossing of different species of potatoes and such? Well, that is a form of cloning as well. But most people don't have problems with that at all it seems.

im perfectly fine with cloning as long as it's safe, healthy, reasonable and that there are no Richard Simmons clones.

Hhhm..
Good topic this one.

I think the cloning is going a little too far.
I mean, in the evolution chain, we're at its peak. We are the most advanced form of organism and the most complex.
As a race, we are given the oppourtunity to be able to pro-create ( and enjoy it ) naturally.
If you look at it, this is the most important thign, as humans that we can do.
To clone humans, i think, is breaking that. And removing one of the things that makes us human.
It's pushing our limits in the evolution chain, i mean, if we can make humans, without reprduction, then where else have we got to go after that in the evolution process. If we get into this, then we're pretty much doing the impossible and have over extended the laws of nature.

Also, if we start cloning humans, what in the world happens to SEX??????
If the future means, cloning, and less people having sex and reproducing naturally, we might end up living in a souless and sexless existance. Thanks but no thanks.

Written by DevilBabi on 24.10.2008 at 03:23

Hhhm..
Good topic this one.

I think the cloning is going a little too far.
I mean, in the evolution chain, we're at its peak. We are the most advanced form of organism and the most complex.
As a race, we are given the oppourtunity to be able to pro-create ( and enjoy it ) naturally.
If you look at it, this is the most important thign, as humans that we can do.
To clone humans, i think, is breaking that. And removing one of the things that makes us human.
It's pushing our limits in the evolution chain, i mean, if we can make humans, without reprduction, then where else have we got to go after that in the evolution process. If we get into this, then we're pretty much doing the impossible and have over extended the laws of nature.

Also, if we start cloning humans, what in the world happens to SEX??????
If the future means, cloning, and less people having sex and reproducing naturally, we might end up living in a souless and sexless existance. Thanks but no thanks.

Would you stop wanting to have sex if cloning got the green light and grew in popularity? Doubt it haha.

re: evolution - you're treating it like a teleological phenomenon, which really isn't the case. It doesn't have an "end", and it's not a linear progression, so I think some of your objections (ie. cloning means that we're breaking the cycle, etc.) are a bit misguided.

If the cloning is succesfully practiced.... then there will be price for human.. there will be human shops..there you can pick your own needs.. lungs..heart..liver..kidneys..eyes..

If youve ever seen the movie 'the island' youd know how much it sucks to have a meaningless life that was created by humans to kill

Written by kkktookmybaby on 25.10.2008 at 06:25

If youve ever seen the movie 'the island' youd know how much it sucks to have a meaningless life that was created by humans to kill

Excuse me, but I just had to LMAO to that comment... The Island is a nice and interesting movie, but movies are not comparable to reality (especially The Island isn't). It seems to be quite common to think of cloning as hollywood styled tales portrayed in movies. In my opinion it's pure idiocy to use movies as some sort of an argument. I mean come on, this is the "serious discussion" section of the site.