[Vision2020] Re: Cloning

Robert Dickow dickow@uidaho.edu
Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:16:29 -0700


Some random thoughts and rantings on cloning:

A clone of Tiger Woods would just as likely develop into a hermit, a
sheep-herder, a policeman, a French horn player, or a brain surgeon with
probably more likelyhood than becoming another virtuoso golf pro. But with
some luck he might become a half-decent horn player, which would in fact be
a Good Thing.

However, it does seem reasonable to protect people from being cloned without
their permission.

A cloned child would have a completely independent identity. It would not
assume the identity of the 'father'. It would be as independent as an
identical twin is in the family unit. Natural identical twins do not feel
that they have been wronged or damaged because they happen to have a twin.
Twins even typically end up having different looks, food preferences,
hobbies, etc. A clone is NOT another one of YOU, although this is a
recognized popular misconception concerning the nature of clones.

> The problem with messing with animals
>is that we end up limiting the gene pool of
>animals to fit only human needs and put the
>species at risk of extinction when we find
>something better and don't need them anymore.

Well, we have been limiting the gene pool to suite humans since the time of
Adam and Eve (for about 10,000 years in other words). Corn (maize) is a
plant that never existed in nature in its current form. We don't even know
what its natural origins are any more!!

There is potentially an issue regarding bio-diversity, but only if you
assume that cloned populations will replace regular ones (i.e. natural cross
breeding.) These issues are easily addressed (as in the handling of forest
stock using cloned material) Given the history of commercial use of cloned
plant material, it is very evident that there has been no reduction of
standard breeding methods or any real threat to bio-diversity. Indeed, the
commercial availability of clones in orchids, for example, has furthered and
indeed increased the sexual cross breeding of new stock of superior
parentage. Cloning in orchids has also reduced pressure on natural
populations because people can acquire superb varieties without having to
import jungle collected specimens. There is no basis whatsoever for thinking
that cloned animals would risk extinctions of anything. Non sequitor.

> Third, you would have ego maniacs
>cloning themselves. Do we really want
>another 8 Michael Jacksons, Bill Clintons,
>and George Bushs? I sure don't

While I might not enjoy seeing more George Bushs prancing around, I doubt
this would be a real problem other than it being unsightly at times. There
might be a few foolhearty enough to pursue this, but who the heck cares?
Certainly the novelty would wear off after people discover that their clone
is NOTHING like them except perhaps in some superficial resemblances.
Michael Jackson would probably lose his clone out some window anyway.

To rant on with no particular reference to the original message...

The dream of our society building an army of clones of Arnold Schwarzenegger
just simply would not happen, because it can't work. Some of the Arnolds
will probably not even become muscle-building afficianados, preferring
instead to raise longhorn steer in Texas as a lifelong calling (maybe cloned
ones though.... uh oh). Many of the Arnolds will prefer a political career
no doubt. To think and argue that we as a society would enslave all the
Arnolds to become meta-soldiers in such a scenario is fanciful Orwellian
thinking at best.

Despite my assertions here, I do feel there are plenty of ethical questions
that need to be adressed when it comes to human cloning. I wouldn't want
anybody to think I was trying to say that 'anything goes' when it comes to
cloning. The thought that society would probably not be enthusiastic to
clone a bunch of Bob Dickows is very disappointing for me, frankly.

Bob Dickow (who obviously has a few extra minutes of spare time this
morning)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>



> LuJane,
>
> It was me, not Dale that first brought this up. Dale is a Libertarian I
think, have to ask him.
>
> My objections are not so much with the cloning of animals, although I am
for other reasons. It is the building of the technology to clone humans.
>
> If you could clone humans this would disastrous to many people. First, a
child would not have their own identity, it would belong to their father.
This is unfair and wrong to that child.
>
> Second, it would lead to identity theft of many people. People could steal
a lock of hair from a famous athlete and clone them so they could make money
off the child. 100,000's of parents already try to train their children to
be pro-tennis, basketball, and golf players. Imagine if they could get DNA
from Tiger Woods.
>
> Third, you would have ego maniacs cloning themselves. Do we really want
another 8 Michael Jacksons, Bill Clintons, and George Bushs? I sure don't.
>
> Fourth, you would see other people we don't want to see, like the cloning
of Adolph Hitler, Lenin, and Pol Pot.
>
> Finally, people would use it to clone parts for themselves. Kill the brain
stem at an early age, and grow arms, legs, and other parts.
>
> The problem with messing with animals is that we end up limiting the gene
pool of animals to fit only human needs and put the species at risk of
extinction when we find something better and don't need them anymore.
>
> I see lots of problems that can be created. Even if the US and most of
European nations make it illegal, it doesn't stop people from doing it in
other countries that see a benefit in stealing DNA from others.
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
> >From: "Tom Hansen"

> >
> >I believe this brings up a very interesting question:
> >
> >Is it the actual conduct of cloning animals (mules or humans) or the
reasons
> >(which may validate or invalidate clining) for the research that evolves
> >into cloning of animals which become ethically (or otherwise)
objectionable
> >to some? Simply put: Does the ends justify the means?