Suffer a clone to live.

[notoppings]

When it is discovered (and it will in the future) that someone has cloned a human, and after the raid on their laboratory several live human clones are discovered. What should be done with the human clones? Is the clone less of a human because it was cloned? Does cloning eliminate the soul? Should the clone be destroyed? Or should it be allowed to live? At what point does human tissue lose it right to existence?

If it is shown that these clones have a working mind and are healthy would they be considered monsters? Would it be better for the world if they would just be destroyed? Which should be used to determine the clones right to exist ethics, morality or religious dogma?

Should the clone who didn't choose to be made have any responsibility for it's existence? Should it bear the burden of mankind's decision?

[brutal]

This questions "At what point does human tissue lose it right to existence? " gets even more hard to answer, cause we don't even know that with the regular humans(some countries have death penalty for some crimes,where you would get away with minor penalty in some other country).

They should be judged by their acts, same as any other human. So, if they behave i would let them live.

But from what you can already see in world, i can say those clones would be in for a hard ride. And at the end they would probably be happy that they can't be called "proper" humans. And that makes them unique in sense, that no other human minority that gets mobbed can say that for themselves.

[Avid]

Human tissue should be protected when it is attached to a working body and healthy aware brain (with exceptions where people aren't born quite right but that is the parents choice, not mine). Some other stuff ties in to abortion but I'll keep that out of this topic....(we really don't need another abortion thread). If they have a spark of life they have a "soul". I mean people already birth genetically identical twins so it should make sense that a clone would technically have a soul, too. Unless you think one twin has a soul and the other doesn't? Obviously, we can't protect every cell or mourn everytime a skin cell dies....

My feeler side says "Sure they are humans. Doesn't matter if they are a copy of someone else and they should still be treated like normal people. I mean we have people conceived in petri dishes..thats a little weird too isn't it?"

My logical side says "What more people? Does the world really need more people? What is the point of all these clones anyway? Were they intended to be slaves and owned as property since there are no laws covering "clone rights"? Were they genetically altered to be fierce combatant super humans for war?"

Anyway, it becomes even more complicated when you throw in possible tech upgrades in the future. What if people create a cyborg with very little human tissue so it is classified as a machine but is truly self aware? Should this mind be protected or should it be property too? Whole thing is too complicated for me to truly figure out at the moment.

[cncracer]

I would say if the Clone had human DNA than it would be human and have the same rights as any other human on the planet.

[iceberg]

My logical side says "What more people? Does the world really need more people? What is the point of all these clones anyway? Were they intended to be slaves and owned as property since there are no laws covering "clone rights"? Were they genetically altered to be fierce combatant super humans for war?"

Anyway, it becomes even more complicated when you throw in possible tech upgrades in the future. What if people create a cyborg with very little human tissue so it is classified as a machine but is truly self aware? Should this mind be protected or should it be property too? Whole thing is too complicated for me to truly figure out at the moment.

So much science fiction visits these issues (Exo Squad, Appleseed, Ghost in the Shell, Gattaca). A clone is a living thing like any other. We have no right to kill them. In this instance my statement is almost hypocritical because we have already played god by giving life now we have to stop playing because now we want to take it away? I think a clone has a right to live and be treated fairly because they are indeed a living thing and just like all living things they never chose to exist but they do.

[PHS Philip]

A clone is a thinking, feeling, intelligent human being in my eyes. There's no reason that they would be different from any other human, so there's no reason that they should be treated differently. Do you "bear the burden for mankind's choice" because it was your parents', and not your, choice for you to exist?

With regard to AI: I think that conscious, self aware, intelligent individuals or beings should be protected (not just humans; what makes us any better than something else that thinks and feels at our level?). Where exactly the border of that is is fuzzy, but I think that the sort of AI that you were talking about is pretty clearly on the side of "self aware and intelligent."

[Avid]

I was just throwing out food for thought. I mean the conclusion I come to doesn't really matter since in the grand scheme of things... I am nothing. What matters is how our people in power and the special interest groups go with it and who is there to fight that ruling (if it needs fighting). I can't answer this though because some of it seems too hypocritical and hypocrisy annoys me.

* I'm thinking the first wave of AI application will be a big mess. Over time people will start adding in more machine parts and "regular" humans will lose sight of robot and human as they equal it out and such. But meh, who knows...

[Homini Lupus]

I find it difficult to consider AI a being worthy of rights, at least a traditional AI as we intend it today (new technologies may make things more complicated). AIs are made by man and every emotion or self consciousness they show is just a reaction of the program. Even if the brain may be considered a computer made of flesh, it has a "soul" (that identity able to say cogito ergo sum, without religion connotatios) that an AI is very unlikely to have (being just a series of instructions carried on by some calculator). As the distinction of machine and living matter will probably shrink over time, this problem may need to be reconsidered.

[PHS Philip]

I find it difficult to consider AI a being worthy of rights, at least a traditional AI as we intend it today (new technologies may make things more complicated). AIs are made by man and every emotion or self consciousness they show is just a reaction of the program. Even if the brain may be considered a computer made of flesh, it has a "soul" (that identity able to say cogito ergo sum, without religion connotatios) that an AI is very unlikely to have (being just a series of instructions carried on by some calculator). As the distinction of machine and living matter will probably shrink over time, this problem may need to be reconsidered.

Well, I agree that current AI isn't to that point, but it seems like they probably will reach that point. And it's absolutely irrelevant that they're man made, or that they're programmed. As you said, our brain's just one huge, incredibly complex program.

[Saint]

I think you're missing something here.

Should the clone who didn't choose to be made have any responsibility for it's existence?

How is this any different if you replace the word "clone" with "child"?

I don't think it is. At all.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Many years ago, I was cloned without my consent. I never wanted this half-ass copy. I grew up shadowed by this abomination... feeding, growing, looking & acting just like me... always apparently striving to BE me- but never quite. My Clone has even been mistaken for ME on more than one occasion- even by my own GRANDPARENTS!

My Clone is even more of an ass than I am... as evidenced by the fact that he's been banned from this board. Last I heard, my Clone had wandered into Iraq and was making good money there.

I'm not so sure that my Clone should be given full human rights. I mean... he's clearly a faded copy. I think he should be sending me royalties... a certain percentage of any money that he makes using MY genetic makeup.

[moon]

Beside medical purpose, i can't remember any other reason why humans should be cloned. But if happnes, clones should have the same rights. I guess soul can't be cloned, yet every clone would be unique person. Maybe we could get an impression that souls are cloned too, because most people are affects physical look. Abusing clone's tissue isn't moral, but that will happen for sure.
Should the clone who didn't choose to be made have any responsibility for it's existence?
We also didn't had a chance to choose if we want to be born or no, but big difference in regard to clone is uniqueness and parenting. I mean, how would you feel if you found out that there are 5 more of you? The other problem is-> rights and moral are indifferent if clone's life can't be normal and it's doomed to collapse. So, several weeks old mother-cells is farest i would go.
So, these founded clones should be treated as a humans, with provided conditions to live their life better.
Anyway, if Nikola Tesla could be cloned, would that clone had the same mental skills?

[cncracer]

In papers I have read on medical cloning I see only organs not full human clones, and I agree if it is just an organ than it is just replacement parts and not a problem.

I my view it would be good to clone people with special abilities, and potential to advance society if we could solve a few basic problems. The biggest problem would be who would pick the individuals to be cloned. I have the built in prejudice to want great scientist to be cloned, others would want leaders of governments or other organizations. I am afraid when we reach that point it might tear our cultures apart with infighting on whom and why a person should be cloned.
Another possible problem is the clone would be given advantages greater than the general population due to their potential and thus we may be setting up a new privileged class of clones which would lead to more social issues.

[iceberg]

In papers I have read on medical cloning I see only organs not full human clones, and I agree if it is just an organ than it is just replacement parts and not a problem.

I my view it would be good to clone people with special abilities, and potential to advance society if we could solve a few basic problems. The biggest problem would be who would pick the individuals to be cloned. I have the built in prejudice to want great scientist to be cloned, others would want leaders of governments or other organizations. I am afraid when we reach that point it might tear our cultures apart with infighting on whom and why a person should be cloned.
Another possible problem is the clone would be given advantages greater than the general population due to their potential and thus we may be setting up a new privileged class of clones which would lead to more social issues.

This is the subject of appleseed. They clone those fit to lead and fight and those are the only people elligible for positions of leadership in society. Thus causing a rift with normal humans.

Why would we ever make sentient machines. I am programmer of AI and robots myself and I essentially would never want a robot that was humanly conscious. I sometimes wouldn't mind programs to be a bit more humanly intuitive. I feel the more human we make machines the more irrational they would become and the more irrational we'd become in our feelings toward them. Pinocchio, anyone? Let's ask tony stark.

[Little Bo Peep]

There is a novel by Kazuo Ishiguro "Never let me go" about this very issue.
It's quite mesmerizing and somehow heartbreaking book.

[Avid]

There is a novel by Kazuo Ishiguro "Never let me go" about this very issue.
It's quite mesmerizing and somehow heartbreaking book.

A new book I need to buy. Thanks.

Yeah, Ice. I gravitate to any media that has to do with genetic engineering, robotics, AI, human mutations, cloning, biology, botany, etc. I'm a big sci-fi freak as eventually some of it becomes science fact. This is partly why I'm so conflicted on the right course of action with things as I see multiple ways such tech could go. First thing I would need to know would be why the clone was created in the first place.

*Actually a lot of what was mentioned reminds me of an anime called, Toward the Terra. Basically, in the future humans leave Earth since it can't support life and humanity becomes robot/AI/government controlled. The robots control a human breeding project to create super humans which remind me a lot of stereotypical INTJ's. Sort of a mixture of The Matrix, Wall-e, and a book called The Rowan by Anne McCaffery. But it deals with human mutation where people have mental powers like telepathy and telekinesis and struggle with the original humans. Really good to watch and I enjoy very few animes (lot of them are stupid except the ones with a really good underlying plot). Shame it didn't get more attention.

[MindOverMatter]

The clones would have the rights that any other person has. As for human tissue such as a heart muscle or skin, I see nothing wrong cloned body tissue.

[notoppings]

I was wondering how religious fundamentalist would feel towards clones, somehow I feel that they would think about them as abominations and seek to destroy them claiming a less then human status for them.

[Avid]

Might be their first reaction. They seem to get flustered over a lot of things.

[cncracer]

Might be their first reaction. They seem to get flustered over a lot of things.

I am sure some would be the first in line to clone their leaders. This is one of the reasons I see it as a cultural time bomb.

[trousers]

To the OP, the clones would be humans technically but not morally since they were raised in a laboratory not society ;)

I my view it would be good to clone people with special abilities, and potential to advance society if we could solve a few basic problems. The biggest problem would be who would pick the individuals to be cloned. I have the built in prejudice to want great scientist to be cloned, others would want leaders of governments or other organizations. I am afraid when we reach that point it might tear our cultures apart with infighting on whom and why a person should be cloned.
Another possible problem is the clone would be given advantages greater than the general population due to their potential and thus we may be setting up a new privileged class of clones which would lead to more social issues.

I'm not romantic or anything, but I generally believe that great leaders and people are made that way through struggle and experiences throughout they're life. They choose to become great people through passion and choice not their genes.

This cloning and genetic modification will probably lead to a world war one day :thumbsdown:

[PHS Philip]

To the OP, the clones would be humans technically but not morally since they were raised in a laboratory not society ;)


Who said they would be raised in the lab? And why is that relevant?


I'm not romantic or anything, but I generally believe that great leaders and people are made that way through struggle and experiences throughout they're life. They choose to become great people through passion and choice not their genes.

This cloning and genetic modification will probably lead to a world war one day :thumbsdown:

Experience + genes = choices. Who you are has a lot to do with your genes, like it or not. And most leaders get to their position by a combination of lying, backstabbing, spin, and attack ads.

[trousers]

Who said they would be raised in the lab? And why is that relevant?

Was a joke, since you can't just make a 30yo clone fully equipped with memories, the clones would be babies raised in labs, I figured they would grow up to be messed up.

Experience + genes = choices. Who you are has a lot to do with your genes, like it or not. And most leaders get to their position by a combination of lying, backstabbing, spin, and attack ads.

We don't know how much affect genes have on personality, I don't think it that big. Attack ads lol, american presidents don't lead shit. If anything, I think a lot of leaders get to where they are through nepotism.

[PHS Philip]

Was a joke, since you can't just make a 30yo clone fully equipped with memories, the clones would be babies raised in labs, I figured they would grow up to be messed up.

Why would they be raised in labs? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



We don't know how much affect genes have on personality, I don't think it that big.

Except that the body of research shows that identical twins separated at birth have very similar personalities.

Attack ads lol, american presidents don't lead shit.

Conspiracy theories?

If anything, I think a lot of leaders get to where they are through nepotism.

Yep, guess I was right. Conspiracy theories.

[Ligda]

unless i'm wrong, which i very well might be, a human clone would still have to be incubated within a uterus and born as every other human would.

taken from wiki's Dolly (sheep) page: "This used the technique of Somatic cell nuclear transfer, where the cell nucleus from an adult cell is transferred into an unfertilized oocyte (developing egg cell) that has had its nucleus removed. The hybrid cell is then stimulated to divide by an electric shock, and when it develops into a blastocyst it is implanted in a surrogate mother."

i don't see why a "clone" would be much different than artificial insemination that takes place today.

scientists are developing methods in which certain organs could be independently grown and transfered into an individual who needs a transplant, so that wouldn't be an issue.

[trousers]

Why would they be raised in labs? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read the first line of the OP... Linking me to adoption on wikipedia lol cheeky motherfucker

Except that the body of research shows that identical twins separated at birth have very similar personalities.
Similar personalities... so? Of course they'll have similar personalities especially if they grew up in the same enviroment. As an extreme example, separated at birth, one has his mother run over by a drunk at a young age and one doesn't, one has a lot more chance to rise to a leadership position in a anti-drink drive movement.

Yep, guess I was right. Conspiracy theories.
I was thinking more along the lines of businesses and countries which aren't as democratically reliant. The american president remark was a throw away comment especially since he doesn't control the economy.

[PHS Philip]

Similar personalities... so? Of course they'll have similar personalities especially if they grew up in the same enviroment. As an extreme example, separated at birth, one has his mother run over by a drunk at a young age and one doesn't, one has a lot more chance to rise to a leadership position in a anti-drink drive movement.

I'm not following. You read the "separated at birth," bit, ignored it, and then disputed it? Separated at birth = different environments. If children who are genetically identical but have different environments have similar personalities, wouldn't that indicate a strong nature component? Not to mention that identical twins' personalities correlate much more than fraternal twins.

[Avid]

Since we are just throwing out assumptions, what if the clones lived in a sheltered society with warm foster parents and came out less culturally toxic than regular society?

[Mechanical Messiah]

Everybody knows that Clones are grown in big jars of transluscent green goo... backlit in a dim, obscure lab.

[trousers]

I'm not following. You read the "separated at birth," bit, ignored it, and then disputed it? Separated at birth = different environments. If children who are genetically identical but have different environments have similar personalities, wouldn't that indicate a strong nature component? Not to mention that identical twins' personalities correlate much more than fraternal twins.

Ok I didn't read your post properly and now we're in a confusing mess hmm. It started when I was basically saying leaders are made not born. Then you said something about genes having a big effect on your personality. I said I don't believe so (but I was mainly thinking about leadership qualities), then you said genes do have a big effect as backed up by identical twin studies but I'm only concerned with leadership. So I gave you a theoretical example of how an event in one twins life can make him more likely a leader even though they have similar personalities, one would have more motivation which can't be genetic.

[PHS Philip]

Oh, that makes more sense. I agree that leadership is in many ways contingent.

[LionsPride]

At the risk of killing a thread...

There has been a lot of talk about the clones rights and it seems pretty straightforward. What if the clones were copies of people without their consent? Let's try two instances:

1: Person gave body to medical science and the captured DNA was used to create a clone. At the time of the 'release' the clone is a 10 year old version of a person that a family 'lost'. They discover this, what's their (the family's) rights? Should they even have any? How might ethics be bent in that case? How might this affect a family if the person whose DNA was used was very young (therefore a parent and other immediate family would still be around)

2: Your DNA was used without your consent, but obtained in a legal manner. There is now a person who has your genes wandering around out there. How would you feel about it? How would your family handle it? Would you feel your sense of self was stolen now that you were no longer unique genetically?

[Avid]

At the risk of killing a thread...

There has been a lot of talk about the clones rights and it seems pretty straightforward. What if the clones were copies of people without their consent? Let's try two instances:

1: Person gave body to medical science and the captured DNA was used to create a clone. At the time of the 'release' the clone is a 10 year old version of a person that a family 'lost'. They discover this, what's their (the family's) rights? Should they even have any? How might ethics be bent in that case? How might this affect a family if the person whose DNA was used was very young (therefore a parent and other immediate family would still be around)

2: Your DNA was used without your consent, but obtained in a legal manner. There is now a person who has your genes wandering around out there. How would you feel about it? How would your family handle it? Would you feel your sense of self was stolen now that you were no longer unique genetically?

Definitely interesting questions to think about. Lets say my child died and I donated the body to science only to see an exact DNA copy of my child running around. I would feel really conflicted. I can't replace the child I lost but I couldn't ignore the child created. The DNA of me and my partner is our property and responsibility unless specifically signed over. (This would probably apply to any of my family members really. Call me sappy.)

If there was a copy of me running around I would do everything in my power to be-friend myself. I think it would be absolutely neat to have myself as a friend. Just so long as the DNA was consentually signed over and I had access and such. There are things that mark me unique that have to do with experience more than DNA. My family would probably roll their eyes and go "Oh GOD! Not another one!".

[PHS Philip]

1: Person gave body to medical science and the captured DNA was used to create a clone. At the time of the 'release' the clone is a 10 year old version of a person that a family 'lost'. They discover this, what's their (the family's) rights? Should they even have any? How might ethics be bent in that case? How might this affect a family if the person whose DNA was used was very young (therefore a parent and other immediate family would still be around)

I think that it depends. If "body donated to science" includes DNA, I don't think the family has any say. It was the choice of the person whose DNA it is. Now, if the DNA was taken without the consent of the deceased (anyone under 14 or 15 couldn't really make that choice, I think, but at the same time I don't think you should have to be 18 to give your consent to that sort of thing), I think the family's entitled to a big award in a lawsuit, but the clone still has the right to live as a normal person. They're still human.

2: Your DNA was used without your consent, but obtained in a legal manner. There is now a person who has your genes wandering around out there. How would you feel about it? How would your family handle it? Would you feel your sense of self was stolen now that you were no longer unique genetically?

I wouldn't feel anything in particular about it. I couldn't really tell you what I define as my self, but someone else having a part of it doesn't really do anything to me. It's a lot like an identical twin. Genetically they're exactly identical to you, but does that diminish you?

[lisakki]

At the risk of killing a thread...

There has been a lot of talk about the clones rights and it seems pretty straightforward. What if the clones were copies of people without their consent? Let's try two instances:

1: Person gave body to medical science and the captured DNA was used to create a clone. At the time of the 'release' the clone is a 10 year old version of a person that a family 'lost'. They discover this, what's their (the family's) rights? Should they even have any? How might ethics be bent in that case? How might this affect a family if the person whose DNA was used was very young (therefore a parent and other immediate family would still be around)

2: Your DNA was used without your consent, but obtained in a legal manner. There is now a person who has your genes wandering around out there. How would you feel about it? How would your family handle it? Would you feel your sense of self was stolen now that you were no longer unique genetically?

You know, to answer number 2. You miss the whole point of the Nature vs Nurture debate. A clone could never be completely like me, because they would never be raised in the exact same environment as I was.

I think of cloning, as just like having a twin, or a hundred twins. Yeah we may be similar, but we'll never be identical.

[Tablelamp]

Since identicle twins are technically clones, I think the whole issue was decided before this thread even started: we haven't killed off twins since the dark ages. (and only then because they might have been witches) So artificial clones are essencially artificial twins (triplets, ect...). The only thing in common with you would be genetics, even their finger prints are likely to differ no matter how good the cloning procedure is.
They would undoubtably be considered human,and therefor up for human rights in our current "impartial" society.

As far as AI's are concerned, the "I" is for intelligent. If intelligence contains awareness, and we deny an aware being any rights, wouldn't it eventually think about it? Isn't that the basis of EVERY AI sci-fi movie/book/story? They decide that not only do they have rights, but humans are jerks for trying to make slaves, and thus need to be eliminated?
Any conscious creation of mankind should be treated like children of man: raised, taught, then left to lead their own lives.
...and hopefully in the end they put our decrepid species in a nursing home... probably as immortal cyborgs. What nice children.:lovestruck: