Parents who lose children in accidents may be able to clone "copies" to replace them within 50 years, a British scientist who won this year's Nobel prize for medicine has predicted.
Sir John Gurdon, whose work cloning frogs in the 1950s and 60s led to the later creation of Dolly the sheep by Edinburgh scientists in 1996, said that progression to human cloning could happen within half a century.
Although any attempt to clone an entire human would raise a host of complex ethical issues, the biologist claimed people would soon overcome their concerns if the technique became medically useful.
I would be more inclined to think that the 50 years is when they will bring it out into the open. They have been experimenting with this.... well... even before Burke and Hare were giving the Frankenstein`s of the world the bodies to experiment on.
For medical purposes, this is great, anything other than that is going completely against nature.
In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.
"Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."
Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:06 AM
Sure, so we may be able to do it. The question scientists constantly cease to ask is should we?
People don't think about how much this devalue's human life. I can hear it now. "So what if you're kid's dead, we can just make a new one!" This concept would not only increase prejudice and hatred toward the cloned, but the very concept of murder would no longer be as serious. And this isn't even close to the kind of chaos it would bring to those who believe in the human soul.
Science without morality is wreckless and at times downright evil.
Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
One of the main fields where cloning is being tested for these days is fertility.
For example, the case where the man and women are infertile but would have the possibility of cloning themselves. The individual born will most likely be completely different.
But of course ethical questions then arise of what would happen if the child grows up and one of the parents feels attracted to him/her. Because they are of course a close replica of the spouse but in more youthful form.
Although it is not guaranteed a clone would actually look the same.
I also believe that parents who have lost a child don't fully comprehend that cloning that child doesn't mean they will get the same child back, the personality could be completely different and could even look differently.
But in cases where the parents are too old to procreate again it may be the only option...of course, is this then a valid option to start over at an older age?
These are ethical dilemma's that are thoroughly being researched.
Without artists, the worlds would be,
like a world without flowers and butterflies.
Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:43 AM
I think they could clone a human being right know. With what longevity result is however still questionable.
Besides that, is cloning humans even desirable?
From our less than honorable history of despising and often killing everything that is 'different' from the norm,
a new race of clones, androids, intelligent robots, would face the same difficulties and hatred as all the other 'different' ones have, and are still suffering.
I would say, unless we learn how to respect those who are 'different', we should not clone humans.
The news is not a neutral and natural phenomenon; it is rather the manufactured production of ideology - Glasgow University Media Group.
Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:27 PM
Cloning a full human for the purpose of emotional replacement is a bad idea in my opinion. Mainly for the reason thongy laid out. However, cloning for the purpose of transplants, blood donations and the like, could be incredibly beneficial to mankind.
Edited by ExpandMyMind, 20 December 2012 - 12:27 PM.
'People are just not informed about this country's [Britain's] real role in the world. They are provided with systematically distorted views and information about the past and present that makes it easier for elites to pursue their policies in their interest and often against the public interest.' - Mark Curtis, page 356, 'Web of Deceit'.
In my opinion, there are only two areas where cloning is a good thing, and then only with disclaimers:
1) Human body part harvest for transplant purposes, with the disclaimer that the scientist must demonstrate that at no point in the clone's life cycle was it ever "aware" or possessing any brain activity at all. Simply the parts, none of the "soul".
2) Human life extension, with the disclaimer including the above, as well as the fact that the technology required to transfer one's consciousness when they get old is perfected at the same time.
I think the "lost loved one" example is poor, because it would mean that they would not be able to transfer that "person" into the clone. Their child would look the same, but be a different person, and would never be treated as such. In the end, I think the parent, or non-clone loved one would be terribly disappointed, and the clone would feel lost and unloved. Dead is dead, unless you can plan for it, like in my scenario #2.