Brazil poised to start cloning multiple endangered species.

[StriderX]

Well it seems that Brazil has more or less decided that they cant stop human nature and has decided that it will go the "dangerous technology with vast implications" idea.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22493-brazil-aims-to-clone-endangered-animals.html

Conservationists in Brazil are poised to try cloning eight animals that are under pressure, including jaguars and maned wolves.

Other conservation groups have welcomed the plan, but say the priority should always be to preserve species in the wild by minimising hunting and maintaining habitats.

"While cloning is a tool of last resort, it may prove valuable for some species," says Ian Harrison of the Biodiversity Assessment Unit at Conservation International in Arlington, Virginia. "Experimenting with it now, using species that are not at immediate risk of extinction, is important."

So will this be the start of a major economy in Cloning and thus huge moral implications for our perhaps near future regarding eventual human clones? Even as a progressive person, this is perhaps one area that I would never desire opened for humans, death rids us of our worst...imagine if Hitler could have cloned himself?

Now you may say imagine if Einstein could have cloned himself, what use would that have been? Honestly.

I have not seen a thread like this up, thought it would be nice.

 

[Morbius]

Even as a progressive person, this is perhaps one area that I would never desire opened for humans, death rids us of our worst...imagine if Hitler could have cloned himself?

You don't necessarily know that the clone would turn out evil. Humans are as much a product of their life experience as their DNA. With different parents and different experiences, Hitler might have turned out OK.

 

[Castiel]

Cloning animals to preserve their species and cloning human individuals are two totally different things from a moral perspective.

Also, would a clone of Einstein be another Einstein or simply another individual with their own personality, consciousness, abilities and faults? Equally if it were Hitler or anyone.....?

 

[StriderX]

You don't necessarily know that the clone would turn out evil. Humans are as much a product of their life experience as their DNA. With different parents and different experiences, Hitler might have turned out OK.

Might is not good enough.

I suppose it would put to bed the argument of nature/nurture, but I really don't mind.

 

[spoffle]

The Hitler argument is a pretty bad one. Firstly you're assuming that a clone would be identical in every way, including personality, and secondly you're implying that Hitler was solely responsible for the many evil deeds ascribed to him, which isn't really true.

All of the people around him who let him do what he did as well as aided and joined in with him are just to blame. Hitler by himself wouldn't or couldn't really do much at all.

 

[mrk]

.imagine if Hitler could have cloned himself?

As Morbius has said, nope!

People confuse what physical cloning is, you’re thinking the 1:1 copy route like in the movies, consciousness included.

Cloning would not do that. A clone might look like its original but it won’t behave like it as it would still be a unique individual!

 

[Morbius]

Might is not good enough.

Any clone would be a new person and as such is subject to "innocent until proven guilty", just as the rest of us are. It would also be unfair to punish the clone for Hitler's wrongs.

 

[LiE]

A human clone may look the same but they wouldn't be the same person.

 

[Haggisman]

Of course there is the argument that if Hitler cloned himself he would also be in control of the mental development of his clone.

But then that would be no different from him bringing up a child

 

[Firestar_3x]

A human clone may look the same but they wouldn't be the same person.

Indeed!

 

[~>Dg<~]

ponders ordering white tiger

 

[StriderX]

I realised this, however usually if someone is quite so involved with himself/ideas whatever, they would go to tremendous lengths to get things done their way (Hitler's downfall, I know).

I suppose the original comment was slightly (more than slightly) overstating it.

One could still theoretically indoctrinate ones clone, though i imagine that may take an awfully long time, especially if you have to also educate the clone.

Another argument then, Human clones being used as test subjects, they could be classed differently and no rights given to them, thus making it a sound way to go about direct testing.

 

[bledd]

Cloned cow meat is already in the food chain

 

[Morbius]

Another argument then, Human clones being used as test subjects, they could be classed differently and no rights given to them, thus making it a sound way to go about direct testing.

If the legal position was that they were classed differently, that still wouldn't make it morally sound. I don't see how that position could arise anyway.

 

[Jono8]

ponders ordering white tiger

I would be up for that. Want to see if we can do an OCUK bulk buy?

 

[Richdog]

I have long thought that cloning is pretty much the only viable solution for the worlds endangered species. Get enough DNA from enough different examples of the species and you can theoretically keep them alive indefinitely so long as you can create habitat for them to live. Also you could theoretically seed new worlds with them too.

 

[StriderX]

Cloned cow meat is already in the food chain

I don't mind that, in fact I hope it rises, so that we no longer have to deal with the possibility of food shortages.

 

[platypus]

Jurassic park is here!

 

[div0]

I realised this, however usually if someone is quite so involved with himself/ideas whatever, they would go to tremendous lengths to get things done their way (Hitler's downfall, I know).

I suppose the original comment was slightly (more than slightly) overstating it.

One could still theoretically indoctrinate ones clone, though i imagine that may take an awfully long time, especially if you have to also educate the clone.

Another argument then, Human clones being used as test subjects, they could be classed differently and no rights given to them, thus making it a sound way to go about direct testing.

You seem to be a bit confused about this.

One could theoretically brainwash/indoctrinate their own child, or any other person. Why would a clone be any different?

If human cloning was to happen, do you really think it is likely that they would be treated differently to any other person, with regards to their 'human rights'? That's about as likely as suggesting that IVF babies might have been born with different rights, or any other equally ridiculous example.

Anyway, you've made quite a leap from the discussion about cloning endangered animals, to ZOMG 'evil-genius super-secret self-cloned army of destruction'.

 

[Reaper 392]

How different are identical twins compared to clones? I know that mutations in the DNA make a couple of differences but other than that are identical twins really any different to clones (aside from the method and time difference between the birth of each animal or human of course)