|
How Much for the Clone?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
How Much for the Clone?
Wired News Report
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/technolog...2,66131,00.html
12:14 PM Dec. 23, 2004 PT
The first cloned-to-order pet sold in the United States is named Little Nicky, a 9-week-old kitten delivered to a Texas woman saddened by the loss of a cat she had owned for 17 years.
The kitten cost its owner $50,000 and was created from DNA from her beloved cat, named Nicky, who died last year.
Yet while Little Nicky frolics in his new home, the kitten's creation and sale has reignited fierce ethical and scientific debate over cloning technology, which is rapidly advancing.
Commercial interests already are cloning prized cattle for about $20,000 each, and scientists have cloned mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, horses -- and even the endangered banteng, a wild bull that is found mostly in Indonesia. |
|
|
| ierxium |
Cloning a cat? What's wrong with people nowadays? Clone a relative! It would live longer and eat more. Wait, did I just call a clone an "it"? Am I wrong? Are the clones consider people too or will be consider people too? To me, with the little knowledge I have, clones are things. Things that are not wroth $50,000.
|
|
|
| x-filer |
| Not only do you know little about clones you know little about spelling words correctly. "wroth" worth. |
|
|
| Sevas Stra |
| OMFG, don't start over one word, first of all and second of all, who cares he mad a good funny post, lol. Clones in my opinion are things beceause they can't possibly have a soul and be the same person because that person is GONE you know what i mean? Also the clone grows up different from the original unless every aspect and every event in the original's life is duplicated which is impossible, literally. The cat is kinda a cool idea provided he doesn't turn into an evil gremlin once he touches water :P |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ierxium
Cloning a cat? What's wrong with people nowadays? Clone a relative! It would live longer and eat more. Wait, did I just call a clone an "it"? Am I wrong? Are the clones consider people too or will be consider people too? To me, with the little knowledge I have, clones are things. Things that are not wroth $50,000.
|
the major backside with cloning is not that the person will be an it (they wont), but that the diversity of the race will be smaller and that the evolution will stop. |
|
|
| Dj Tomer |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
the major backside with cloning is not that the person will be an it (they wont), but that the diversity of the race will be smaller and that the evolution will stop. |
Cloning technology will probably lead to DNA engineering in the far future (I know they do it on vegetables and such, but would probably be 'slightly' more complicated on animals and humans) which could steer evolution in whatever way we'd see fit, kinda like that crappy movive... what was it called? gattica?
Anyway, cloning a frigin' pet is really a waste of the technology in my opinion. Just get a new cat that kinda looks like the old one, and give it the same name if you have to. Personally I think there's nothing wrong with cloning endangered species (First time i've heard of that), since their extinction is our fault, might as well try and fix it ourselves. |
|
|
| ierxium |
| quote: | Originally posted by x-filer
Not only do you know little about clones you know little about spelling words correctly. "wroth" worth. |
It would take a wiser person than me to point that out. I'm guessing that's you. So please inform me on all you know about cloning, specially everything relating to ethics. And about the typing error, I apologize, I know a typing error like the one I made can lead some people into confusion. But I'm glad you figured out what I was trying to say.
|
|
|
| George Smiley |
Without any relevent biological knowledge, I am pretty confident in suggesting that anything cloned (animals, plants, humans) will not be a "thing" but whatever it was they were cloned from. A cloned human will be, funnily enuf, a human
| quote: | | Clones in my opinion are things beceause they can't possibly have a soul |
A soul eh? Didn't get taught about them in biology class! Tell me, was that statement based on scientific information, or did you just make it up from your own religious experiences? |
|
|
| Dj Tomer |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
A soul eh? Didn't get taught about them in biology class! Tell me, was that statement based on scientific information, or did you just make it up from your own religious experiences? |
Lol, I think cloning should be proof to people of the fact that there's no such thing as a soul :whip: |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Tomer
Cloning technology will probably lead to DNA engineering in the far future (I know they do it on vegetables and such, but would probably be 'slightly' more complicated on animals and humans) which could steer evolution in whatever way we'd see fit, kinda like that crappy movive... what was it called? gattica? |
what would really be wrong in DNA engineering? as long as we understnad what we are doing (which im not sure if we will ever but oh well) i dont have any problem whatsoever with it.
and gattica is flawed imo :p |
|
|
| Dj Tomer |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
what would really be wrong in DNA engineering? as long as we understnad what we are doing (which im not sure if we will ever but oh well) i dont have any problem whatsoever with it.
and gattica is flawed imo :p |
never got into that movie since I was breaking up with my girlfriend during it... but that's a different story ;)
I personally think there is nothing wrong with it as well. I agree that the technology might be very far ahead of our times, but if we could ever do it, it could end all disease and increase our life expectancy and quality. Of course, it will probably only be available for the wealthy and end up screwing middle and lower classes over, and i guess genetic prejudice would follow, since the elite are so tolerant. |
|
|
| Sevas Stra |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Without any relevent biological knowledge, I am pretty confident in suggesting that anything cloned (animals, plants, humans) will not be a "thing" but whatever it was they were cloned from. A cloned human will be, funnily enuf, a human
A soul eh? Didn't get taught about them in biology class! Tell me, was that statement based on scientific information, or did you just make it up from your own religious experiences? |
Gee it's funny how little you know. Did you read anything after the soul part? If you don't believe in souls then you believe in physical and not the metaphysical therefore, you blieve in the inherent human trait. That is, improvement and progression. If you clone something it does not posses memories or anything else from the original subject's prior years, hence therefore; the clone will be nothing like the original because it wouldn't go through the same struggles, hardships, and just plain events like the original and will not progress to become the same person but rather a plain genetical copy...much like a twin...nothing more. |
|
|
|
|
