Argument/Persuasion: “On Cloning a Human Being”

[Ms. Miller, MAED & MA]

Prompt: Read “OCHB.” Discuss whether you agree or disagree with parts or all of Thomas’ argument on cloning. What criteria would you use to assess whether a person was suitable for cloning? What changes would you make to revise parts of Thomas’ argument?




Your first response should be a minimum of 300 words. Then respond to 2-3 classmates in 150 words each




Please register. Include your name and period for each post.

[adityaraj]

Aditya Raj, P. 3

Thomas starts the essay by stating that it is "theoretically possible to recreate any identical creature from any animal or plant"; or cloning. Thomas believes that cloning is one of the most worrying things in science, and I agree with his statement. If cloning becomes easier and practical for humans, it will cause dismay and chaos that could damage society and the world as we know it. Thomas is also correct in the fact that it eliminates the need for finding a partner, which does seem worrying. Thomas continues the essay by going on to talk about the obvious questions: who will be selected, how will they be selected, and how can we mitigate the risks of misuse of this technology? Thomas believes that cloning will produce similar but not quite perfect copies of people, and he believes time is a formidable problem. I also agree with this as time is a problem that humanity has faced forever, and growth of these "cloned cells" will likely take years to produce clones. After this point, Thomas points out that the environment has a big role in who an individual grows up to be, and I also heavily agree with this. He then discusses how in order to clone someone, you'd need to clone their family, and those people's families, and so on. I disagree with Thomas here. I believe that if cloning is developed for use with human beings, it will be in an extremely advanced technological era. I believe that virtual reality will be much more practical and applicable for everyday use in this supposed time, and a "simulation-like world" could hypothetically be generated to reproduce the same environment the original was in to be replicated for the clone. This could allow cloning to actually be plausible in the far future, if it is ever developed. Thomas believes that cloning people would not change or help fix any of the world's problems, but instead repeat them, and I also agree with this. Thomas ends the essay by saying instead of trying to clone people, do the opposite; be unique. I agree with this, new inventions, music, movies, entertainment, ideas, and so on are the basis for our world as we know it, and we should focus on the new things in life rather than trying to clone people.

[Genevieve Chavez Per. 3]

I agree with all of Thomas' arguments regarding cloning. As humans we are a product of our experiences, shaped by our environment and our experiences collectively. The author references B.F Skinner on page two, a psychologist who established the theory that as we observe behavior, we respond, and the response gets reinforced. This leads to our behavior as humans being conditioned. To effectively create a clone, everything about the world around us would have to also be duplicated. We would have to clone not only our parents, but, "It is the whole family that really influences the way a person turns out, not just the parents, according to current psychiatric thinking. Clone the family.Then what? The way each member of the family develops has already been determined by the environment set around him, and this environment is more people, people outside the family, schoolmates, acquaintances, lovers, enemies, car-pool partners,even, in special circumstances, peculiar strangers across the aisle on the subway. Find them, and clone them. But there is no end to the protocol. Each of the outer contacts has his own surrounding family, and his and their outer contacts. Clone them all" (Thomas 3). Hence the subject of cloning is much more difficult than first perceived. To determine who is eligible for cloning, I would first look at who they have interacted with. If this amount is in great abundance, it may increase the difficulty of the experiment. I would examine their environment such as their house and school. I might even look at how accessible their genomes are for cloning. Lastly, I would pick someone who could really contribute to society, such as a scientist or social advocate. Some changes I would make to Thomas’ argument in order to revise it would be increasing the amount of evidence. For example, he talks heavily about how our environment would have to be replicated, so I would quote studies that support this or hear from people who influenced their life.

[abeer]

I don't agree with cloning at all. In my opinion, I think it is best to get a surrogate instead if you cannot give birth. Some DNA cells have mutations at times, and if you use the mutated cell to clone the baby there could be something wrong with the baby whether it's in the near future, or the long term. There could also be problems with the baby when you have a surrogate, but I don't see how cloning is a safer option. Cloning looks like it could be way worse and if the baby (or egg) already has the DNA set up and you add two more DNA cells, I don't even know what could happen. It looks like a scary thing because at times cells get mutated, making people sick or they can get other diseases. If you were to put two more cells for a baby, you are putting the baby in danger and they could be born sick or be born with some type of disease. On top of that, if the cell has too many mutations, the child's cells have a danger of becoming cancerous because of the many mutations that could happen within a cell. If a mutation occurs within a baby, the baby has low chances of surviving and developing. DNA is hard to replicate and if the DNA strand breaks, it becomes cancerous. The genes can become an abnormality and lead to the child possibly looking completely different from the mother and the father. First, you would need to test the DNA to see if it's suitable for cloning. If the person has many health problems, I would advise not to do the DNA clones. The main changes I would make in Thomas' argument is the above. I would show the possible dangers of DNA cloning and would show different options of having children. I would highlight the dangers because everyone needs to be informed of how dangerous the DNA clones can actually be. It can harm many people.

[taylor t]

I agree with Thomas' argument on the cloning of human beings; the act of cloning humans has no real benefit to the world and will do more harm than good. When a human is cloned, it can generally be assumed that within a couple years that clone's personality will be starkly different from the original's. Therefore, it makes no hypothetical sense to clone a human being, when raising a chosen person up to be a desired individual is far less difficult to achieve and already being done. However, if I were to need to clone a human being of my choosing, I would engage a list of criteria in my selection. First, I would take into consideration how they have affected society, if they have done so at all. The preferred individual should be the complete opposite of social in order to prevent any future mishaps with friends or family. This is especially important if the cloning was done without the consent of the loved ones, who would certainly be shocked to discover a dead relative to be back from the grave. Second, I'd consider their intelligence. Although much of one's psyche is earned from their surroundings, there is still a portion simply inherited by genetics. Ideally, this person would be smart, but relatively incapable of making their own decisions, making the process of raising someone to be the desired persona far more achievable. Finally, and arguably most importantly, I'd consider their physical build and capabilities. The only logical reason to clone an individual has nothing to do with their psyche, which is almost all gained through one's surroundings. Rather, the only benefit a clone could reliably provide is their physique, inherited and trained to be the best it can possibly be. Through tests for general health and athletic performance, a very capable clone can be made to handle difficult and physical matters.

[adityaraj]

Feb 28, 2024 10:40:40 GMT -8 Genevieve Chavez Per. 3 said:

I agree with all of Thomas' arguments regarding cloning. As humans we are a product of our experiences, shaped by our environment and our experiences collectively. The author references B.F Skinner on page two, a psychologist who established the theory that as we observe behavior, we respond, and the response gets reinforced. This leads to our behavior as humans being conditioned. To effectively create a clone, everything about the world around us would have to also be duplicated. We would have to clone not only our parents, but, "It is the whole family that really influences the way a person turns out, not just the parents, according to current psychiatric thinking. Clone the family.Then what? The way each member of the family develops has already been determined by the environment set around him, and this environment is more people, people outside the family, schoolmates, acquaintances, lovers, enemies, car-pool partners,even, in special circumstances, peculiar strangers across the aisle on the subway. Find them, and clone them. But there is no end to the protocol. Each of the outer contacts has his own surrounding family, and his and their outer contacts. Clone them all" (Thomas 3). Hence the subject of cloning is much more difficult than first perceived. To determine who is eligible for cloning, I would first look at who they have interacted with. If this amount is in great abundance, it may increase the difficulty of the experiment. I would examine their environment such as their house and school. I might even look at how accessible their genomes are for cloning. Lastly, I would pick someone who could really contribute to society, such as a scientist or social advocate. Some changes I would make to Thomas’ argument in order to revise it would be increasing the amount of evidence. For example, he talks heavily about how our environment would have to be replicated, so I would quote studies that support this or hear from people who influenced their life.

Aditya Raj P. 3
I agree with your point that we are products of our experiences and environments collectively. Human beings cannot be "synthesized" without these critical moments in life. I also agree with your point that cloning the whole family and every single person is not plausible. You can't clone everyone on the planet, it doesn't make any sense. There are so many people in your environment, it would be impossible to clone every single person and generate a completely identical environment to synthesize a completely identical person. I also believe that cloning is extremely difficult, much more so than it first seems. I see your point about the environment such as the house and school needing to be replicated, and I agree with this, but I believe it is impossible to completely replicate it. The buildings are likely possible, however the people are certainly impossible, as to clone people you need to clone other people, which creates a sort of a paradox.

[sidneyadams1]

I agree with Thomas in this essay because cloning seems like a long, tiring process. The fact in order to clone one person you could potentially clone the entire world is outrageous. Next, to add on to the idea that, "They'd surely begin to look around at each other, wondering who should be clones for his special value to society" (pg. 4), and ".. in order to provide a version of immortality for carefully selected, especially valuable people (pg.1). Who is the one to dictate who these "special" people are. Isn't it preached that everyone is special in their own way? Cloning is very risky because everyone feels that they have a special quality to contribute to the world. This cloning process could cause ruckus and commotion around the world. Also, in the possibility that a cloning device could be shared between countries to be used for bad purposes or whatever they chose. In general, cloning without a clear purpose is pointless, and reckless. Finally that state that Thomas makes at the end which says, "And so it would go, in regular cycles, perhaps forever" (pg.4). This adds to the fact that cloning is pointless because why go in cycles when we could spend time on this earth coming up with new ideas that future NEW generations could add on to.

[ryanl856]

After reading "On Cloning a Human Being" my opinion on cloning a human being has changed. I have always thought that cloning someone would be cool since you would always see it in TV shows and stuff, but I've never really thought about the risk of it. There are also many questions like Thomas asked, "Who is to be selected, and on what qualifications? How to handle the risks of misused technology, such as self-determined cloning by the rich and powerful but socially objectionable, or the cloning by governments of dumb, docile masses for the world’s work? What will be the effect on all the uncloned rest of us human sameness?" For example, if a unhealthy person got cloned would that make many of that person's clones ill also, or what if the technology used malfunctions and an accident happens what would people think of cloning now. There are so many things that could go wrong leading me to believe clones aren't really necessary. If we wanted to test cloning we could try it on animals first until we have a high enough success rate. Some of the criteria that I would use to assess whether a human is suitable for cloning is mainly the health of the person. The reason for a clone is because we want a same version, but why would we want a bad one? I agree with Thomas' argument that clones could be the future and everything but those things aren't needed instead we should focus on mutations are variety instead of an exact copy. I personally agree with that because the more variety we have the more of a chance we have to get a human that is immune to a lot of things which can lead to all humans evolving to that kind. This would make much better use in our future rather than having someone/something exactly like us.

[adityaraj]

Feb 28, 2024 10:44:14 GMT -8 abeer said:

I don't agree with cloning at all. In my opinion, I think it is best to get a surrogate instead if you cannot give birth. Some DNA cells have mutations at times, and if you use the mutated cell to clone the baby there could be something wrong with the baby whether it's in the near future, or the long term. There could also be problems with the baby when you have a surrogate, but I don't see how cloning is a safer option. Cloning looks like it could be way worse and if the baby (or egg) already has the DNA set up and you add two more DNA cells, I don't even know what could happen. It looks like a scary thing because at times cells get mutated, making people sick or they can get other diseases. If you were to put two more cells for a baby, you are putting the baby in danger and they could be born sick or be born with some type of disease. On top of that, if the cell has too many mutations, the child's cells have a danger of becoming cancerous because of the many mutations that could happen within a cell. If a mutation occurs within a baby, the baby has low chances of surviving and developing. DNA is hard to replicate and if the DNA strand breaks, it becomes cancerous. The genes can become an abnormality and lead to the child possibly looking completely different from the mother and the father. First, you would need to test the DNA to see if it's suitable for cloning. If the person has many health problems, I would advise not to do the DNA clones. The main changes I would make in Thomas' argument is the above. I would show the possible dangers of DNA cloning and would show different options of having children. I would highlight the dangers because everyone needs to be informed of how dangerous the DNA clones can actually be. It can harm many people.

Aditya Raj P. 3
I also agree with you that cloning should not be made possible whatsoever. Cloning is unethical and could have serious ramifications on the world. Like you said, there are many other options if you are unable to give birth, all of which are much better than trying to clone yourself or someone else. I agree that clones can have many, many issues. Mutations are definitely possible and could mess up the baby. It can lead to sickness, disease, and many other unhealthy and unwelcome diseases or conditions. Cancer is certainly something you should be afraid of with this kind of thing, adding to the point that cloning should not happen whatsoever. There are so many things that could go wrong and you could be hurting this new life that you've "synthesized", only for it not to be a clone. What would happen if the cloning "fails"? You would not have a clone, but a regular baby at danger of the elements of the world considering its unique "birth". I agree that the possible dangers of cloning should be shown and that it can harm many people. Cloning can hurt the babies, and the people who are trying to clone the babies too. Even if cloning is successful, I believe it could upset the natural way of life in the world and have many negative consequences.

[KateLian Linky]

I agree with Thomas' perspective on cloning. I feel that cloning is a long process especially of another person. A persons tribulations and success' is what makes them who they currently are. Many people can impact a person a persons life in a big and small way. It would be extremely hard to clone someone and still have the same morals and values as the "original". It is almost the same with twins, they may look alike but they don't always think the same and believe the same things. In order for a clone to relive everything the "original" went through would create a problem. What if someone had died in the life of the "original" that effected them, then you would have to make a clone of that same person, and so on and so forth. It could be as little as hearing something someone had said that changed their morals completely, then you would have to make a clone of them as well. No matter what kind of technology we have now it would still take a great amount of effort to fully create another "human being". Also, Thomas brings up a good point of, how will humans be effected by the clones? How are we supposed to differentiate human beings with clones? Who gets to be cloned and for what reasons?

[jackp14]

Jack Patterson Per. 3

For the most part, I agree with Thomas' argument on cloning. I think that cloning could be a good thing if you clone the right people. If you were to clone someone who is a great inventor such as Elon Musk, or a really famous scientist such as Albert Einstein, we could probably continue using their ideas. With that being said, I also feel like it could be used in a bad way. Bad people could end up cloning a criminal leader who could teach them how to get away with certain crimes, or in certain countries you could clone the president, and he would become president forever. I also agree with his argument that cloning a human would be very hard and time consuming. You would have to get a whole family to clone, which is really hard considering Thomas said it takes about 40 years to clone. That is really hard to space out between a family and make sure everybody stays alive. The criteria I would consider when deciding if someone is suitable for cloning is did the person have a positive impact on society, how would they continue to help society after being cloned, and if it is possible for their entire family to be cloned. I don't think anyone with parents over 60 should be cloned, because it is likely that their parents won't live another 40 years, which is the amount of time needed for a clone. The parts of Thomas' argument I would revise are adding more pros and cons of cloning. You could add how it might be beneficial to topics such as sports. You could have a separate league for each sport with the clones of all the greatest athletes to play that sport, or, you could argue that this could ruin sports because it is taking eyes off of upcoming talent.

[dlpalazzola]

On Cloning a Human Being by Lewis Thomas,I can agree with his standpoint that cloning is a very detailed and hard process. It is something that shouldn't be messed with by any means, as it's a very precise and hard study. That no one should mess with by no means. I don't think that anybody should be "suitable" for cloning, as the person will never turn out the same. Life is an result of cause and effect, without having her perfect detail, you wouldn't have or be who you are. What makes anyone think they can master cloning, not only do you have to copy the whole world. But practically everyone in the past. Some changes that I would make is saying how you would need everyone's ancestors or else they won't turn out on how they are today. I would also not support cloning in anyways even if you use it to "grow" a person to harvest body parts for medical reasons. You shouldn't be doing that because they turn into someone, they are someone and they develop feelings.

[Darren P.3]

I partially agree and disagree.I would study people's personality traits, and abilities. If and when we clone people,we want people who are going to contribute well to the world. We don't want people who necessarily don't contribute and provide negative impact on the world. We should also limit how many people we are cloning. We don't want to clone everyone in the world as that would cause a lot of havoc and destruction. Many political, economical, and social problems would occur. The earth can only inhabit a certain amount of people before we as a human species are going to have to fight to survive. Now I wouldn't necessarily try to get better mutations faster, but I would consider if needing a clone is an option. If there is no proper reason to clone, we as a species shouldn't consider cloning. Cloning takes a lot of money and time. The technology we need and the time it takes to get all of the proper mutations for an effective clone.

[Genesis]

I agree with all parts of Thomas' argument on cloning . In the essay, Thomas tends to state many times how cloning would consist of many actions because your specific clone has to live through the same life as you to be you. One example of this is having to clone other people that are family or even strangers for your twin to be the same as you. Although I believe there would be a less complex way of becoming a twin, it makes sense that the author would think you need to start from the very beginning to accomplish this type of experiment. A way to know if someone is suitable for cloning is when Thomas says that you must be ready to clone the entire environment that someone has lived in, down to the very detail of when they opened their mouth. He continues by explaining that many people often overlook the big problem of cloning because of the excitement of the action itself and the imagination of what type of power one could have.

[Ashmit Sharma]

P3. Starting firstly the author states that we can clone almost anything in this world with one exception being humans. I agree with this statement because if we did have the technology to clone humans we would have done so a long time ago. After going on for a little bit he explains how cloning humans is ridiculous and we would not be able to. He states that if we were to clone a human we would have to clone their family, and their friends, and from there it is an infinite loop of cloning people. I disagree with this because if we were to clone a human we won't have to clone all the people next to them because the cloned human would have the same memory as the original non cloned human. He also questions who will be selected if we did clone people; the poor or the rich. In this case I disagree with both; cloning someone because of who they are just to take advantage of them is not ethical and morally wrong. I believe if there was a choosing on who we would clone it would be random people no matter who they are. Furthermore if we did do all he said and cloned people they would not be developed and would be useless to society. I also agree with this statement since cloning will just end us all up in a bad situation. He ends his article by suggesting to try new things instead of cloning; one of humans most worrying things in science, such as different entertainment items.