• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Jeffersonian Future

I wonder, when they start cloning humans, and they will, if some will try to say they don't have rights, since they are not created by God, and thus can be used as slaves..pretty much how they justified slavery for 400 years or so....

Do you think laws should be passed now to protect future generations of clones? Or even AI androids? Or is it too soon for that?

Rob
Scorpio
 
Well they cloned dogs and cows so it stands to reason that humans are right around the corner. But I'm thinking as humans they will automatically have the same rights as we all do....why wouldn't they? Children that are artificially inseminated are in that same ballpark and no one questions their humanity,
 
Well they cloned dogs and cows so it stands to reason that humans are right around the corner. But I'm thinking as humans they will automatically have the same rights as we all do....why wouldn't they? Children that are artificially inseminated are in that same ballpark and no one questions their humanity,

Oh, I hope you are right...but humans have a way of treating animals better sometimes..

Rob
 
Well they cloned dogs and cows so it stands to reason that humans are right around the corner. But I'm thinking as humans they will automatically have the same rights as we all do....why wouldn't they? Children that are artificially inseminated are in that same ballpark and no one questions their humanity,

How will somebody really know how they were "created" anyways. A cloned person will undoubtedly look like any other human, meaning how will we tell by just looking at them.

Oh, I hope you are right...but humans have a way of treating animals better sometimes..

Rob

That is very true. In some cases animals seem to have more rights.
 
Well they cloned dogs and cows so it stands to reason that humans are right around the corner. But I'm thinking as humans they will automatically have the same rights as we all do....why wouldn't they? Children that are artificially inseminated are in that same ballpark and no one questions their humanity,

How will somebody really know how they were "created" anyways. A cloned person will undoubtedly look like any other human, meaning how will we tell by just looking at them.

Oh, I hope you are right...but humans have a way of treating animals better sometimes..

Rob

That is very true. In some cases animals seem to have more rights.


Oh, I could see them cloning 'worker' humans in the future. Clone them to have smaller brains, but bigger muscles, so they can do the grunt work that our lazy descendents wouldn't want to do...

Rob
 
I wonder, when they start cloning humans, and they will, if some will try to say they don't have rights, since they are not created by God, and thus can be used as slaves..pretty much how they justified slavery for 400 years or so....

Saying that about a clone would be no different from saying it about any other child conceived by in vitro fertilization or other artificial fertility methods. Since quite a few children these days are conceived in that way, I really don't think that argument would fly, because it would set an absurd and dangerous precedent.

The genetic material for a clone would come from a parent's DNA the same way the genetic material for any other offspring does. Only the details of the process would differ. For that matter, there already are naturally occurring clones; we call them identical twins or triplets. Clones would be no less "natural" people than anyone else.

For that matter, why would anyone in the future want clones to be slaves? Slaves are a workforce. Who would be willing to wait 20 years and invest the huge amount of money that would be required to raise, feed, clothe, house, and educate clones (since they would age and develop no differently than any other child), if they could just use robot labor? If you want a workforce that has no human rights, subsentient robots are infinitely better than slaves, since they're easier and quicker to manufacture, easier to control and maintain, and free of pesky ethical questions.

The only plausible reason for using human cloning would be as a new method for providing infertile or gay couples -- or committed singles -- with biological offspring. Also, cloning individual tissues or organs would allow for transplants with no risk of rejection. (Note that it would not be necessary to clone an entire person just to harvest organs from, which is an absurdly wasteful and pointless idea, tantamount to building an entire car just so it can be harvested for scrap parts. It's vastly easier and more sensible just to build/clone the parts individually.)
 
That is very true. In some cases animals seem to have more rights.
Which is as it should be IMO.
What rights should an 'animal' have that a human being shouldn't have?


cloning individual tissues or organs would allow for transplants with no risk of rejection. (Note that it would not be necessary to clone an entire person just to harvest organs from, which is an absurdly wasteful and pointless idea, tantamount to building an entire car just so it can be harvested for scrap parts. It's vastly easier and more sensible just to build/clone the parts individually.)
Not to mention it would be highly unethical and immoral to bring a person into this world solely for the purpose of harvesting their organs. Efficiency isn't the only thing to consider here.

---------------
 
Not to mention it would be highly unethical and immoral to bring a person into this world solely for the purpose of harvesting their organs. Efficiency isn't the only thing to consider here.

Well, yes, obviously, although the proposal typically involved breeding anencephalic (brainless) clones. But my point is that it's a false moral dilemma. There's no point in worrying about the morality of that particular application of cloning because it's such a ludicrous and unnecessary approach that it would never be done anyway. Organ harvesting has been proposed in fiction as one of the ways in which clones might be enslaved, and I'm pointing out that there's no realistic chance of that ever happening -- indeed, it's far less likely than the proposition that clones might be declared "soulless" due to the in vitro nature of their fertilization.

So I'm not disputing that these things would be bad if they happened; surely the immorality of enslaving or killing sapient beings is so obvious to all of us that it doesn't need to be pointed out. I'm just saying that there's no great cause for worry that these dystopian scenarios could actually come about, because there's no practical reason why a future society would want to do things in such an inefficient and overcomplicated way when there are better alternatives.
 
Look, obviously I own all benefits and entitlements and payments for any thing produced by my clone. Any ideas it comes up with are MY property. All money it earns is MY profit from MY self. My clone is MY self.
 
Also, cloning individual tissues or organs would allow for transplants with no risk of rejection. (Note that it would not be necessary to clone an entire person just to harvest organs from, which is an absurdly wasteful and pointless idea, tantamount to building an entire car just so it can be harvested for scrap parts. It's vastly easier and more sensible just to build/clone the parts individually.)
Actually, it isn't easier to just clone organs. At this point, we can only build the simplest organs. We've been able to grow skin for a while now, and I seem to remember someone growing a bladder, but I can't think of any other successful organ engineering. Organs form during embryonic development through very complex interactions between cells and tissues and movement of cells that can't be replicated on a single-organ basis. For example, the cell type I study, the neural crest, migrates out of the neural tube (a very early struture that eventually becomes the central nervous system) throughout the embryo. They contribute to several tissues and organs throughout the body. If you tried to grow a heart (for example) from cloned cells, you would be missing the neural crest and part of the heart would not form properly. Much of the current work in this field involves seeding some sort of a matrix with stem cells (which can be obtained from the person the organ is to treat and don't require cloning) and trying to get the stem cells to populate the matrix and build the organ. I believe this is how the bladder I mentioned earlier was grown. In the near term, this approach may work with organs with a simple structure, such as muscle or bone, or perhaps a stomach or liver. On the other hand, through cloning, one could grow an entire organism with all the organs formed properly. Aside from the ethical arguments, we could almost certainly clone a human within the next few years from which we could harvest organs. That is much easier than trying to clone individual organs.

Having said that, I hope we never clone humans for organ harvesting. Making a person just to kill them and harvest organs is so far across that ethical line that it should never even be seriously considered.
 
Look, obviously I own all benefits and entitlements and payments for any thing produced by my clone. Any ideas it comes up with are MY property. All money it earns is MY profit from MY self. My clone is MY self.

Actually he isn't. A clone wouldn't even be as identical to you as a twin would be, since development is influenced by epigenetic, hormonal, and environmental factors as well as genetic ones. Of course, your clone would also be much younger than you and would have none of your knowledge or memories. His upbringing, education, and life experiences would be completely distinct from your own. You would have no business at all taking credit for his ideas.

Popular culture conditions us to think of clones as exact copies, but it would be far more accurate to think of them as parthenogenetic offspring.


Actually, it isn't easier to just clone organs. At this point, we can only build the simplest organs. We've been able to grow skin for a while now, and I seem to remember someone growing a bladder, but I can't think of any other successful organ engineering. Organs form during embryonic development through very complex interactions between cells and tissues and movement of cells that can't be replicated on a single-organ basis. For example, the cell type I study, the neural crest, migrates out of the neural tube (a very early struture that eventually becomes the central nervous system) throughout the embryo. They contribute to several tissues and organs throughout the body. If you tried to grow a heart (for example) from cloned cells, you would be missing the neural crest and part of the heart would not form properly. Much of the current work in this field involves seeding some sort of a matrix with stem cells (which can be obtained from the person the organ is to treat and don't require cloning) and trying to get the stem cells to populate the matrix and build the organ. I believe this is how the bladder I mentioned earlier was grown. In the near term, this approach may work with organs with a simple structure, such as muscle or bone, or perhaps a stomach or liver. On the other hand, through cloning, one could grow an entire organism with all the organs formed properly. Aside from the ethical arguments, we could almost certainly clone a human within the next few years from which we could harvest organs. That is much easier than trying to clone individual organs.

That's interesting; thank you for explaining it. However, assuming that the technical hurdles could be surmounted, it would naturally be much more efficient to grow individual organs than to invest a couple of decades in raising and sustaining a whole clone. The latter might require less technological sophistication, but it's hardly the preferred option, either from an ethical or a pragmatic standpoint.

Having said that, I hope we never clone humans for organ harvesting. Making a person just to kill them and harvest organs is so far across that ethical line that it should never even be seriously considered.

Heck, we're making good progress developing artificial organs anyway. It might be a race between the two technologies. Or perhaps the solution might be a mix of both; maybe the problems with cloning individual organs could be compensated for by making them part-bionic.
 
Heck, we're making good progress developing artificial organs anyway. It might be a race between the two technologies. Or perhaps the solution might be a mix of both; maybe the problems with cloning individual organs could be compensated for by making them part-bionic.

Well, if that happens, I will be very disappointed if they don't play the Six Million Dollar Man special *tsh tsh tsh tsh tsh tsh* music every time one of them uses their bionic parts. Unless it's a bladder. That would be really awkward.
 
What rights should an 'animal' have that a human being shouldn't have?
Animals are innocent and deserve as many rights as possible, Humans on the other hand are scum and deserve none.
You obviously have no right to come to that conclusion.

---------------

Let's not forget that humans could readily be referred to as the animals at or near the top of the food chain on Earth.

While I respect both of your opinions (personally, I think we're all part of the same natural system, no creature more important than another, but that's my opinion), if we can get anything out of this tangent, it would be nice if we could make an effort to understand all sides of the argument.
 
Cloning could be great for the person who wants to live forever, clone new body sans brain, move brain over to new body.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top