Argument/Persuasion: “On Cloning a Human Being”

[makenna h]

I agree that cloning is something to be worried about which is one of the arguments Thomas makes. When it comes to cloning there seems to be a lot of problems or faults with the process. One of these being how long it takes to complete such experiments. another problem mentioned was the misuse of technology. There is also the worry of over empowerment if we were to continue past a safe limit of cloning. The criteria I would use to asses if someone was adequate to be cloned would be well planned. One standard would be making sure said person is okay with the length process of cloning. Another would be ensuring the person is okay with the process not working, or resulting negatively. I would also make sure the person I chose was someone who didn't hold to much power

[Wyatt Turner P. 3]

First of all, I think that the idea of cloning is an overall bad idea. It opens doors that nobody has explored before and this kind of experiment is hard to control. If something of someone is cloned the clone could be entirely different from the original person, because no matter what you do a clone can't experience and go through everything that the original person has experienced in their life. Cloning Is an unrealistic idea that brings nothing but problems to the table no matter what you do. However, I do partially agree with Thomas on the majority of the paper. It explains the in-depth process of how the cloning process should theoretically work and it brings up all the problems that would get in the way of

[Corey, Period 3]

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?

I agree with Thomas' argument on cloning. Many of the things that he said in the book I agree with. If cloning humans were possible, I believe that it could get out of control very quickly. Some people would begin abusing them, and using cloned humans for unusual purposes. Then there is also the question about if it is ethical to do this type of thing. The criteria that I would use to assess whether a person was suitable to cloning would include: the value of that person, for example if they had a very big impact on the world, and how healthy they are. For example, how susceptible that person is to diseases such as cancer. I wouldn't make any changes to Thomas' argument, but would add questions about the ethical problem to cloning humans. For example, if you were to clone a human being, would it be ethical to treat them badly, as if they were a slave? Would it be ethical to feed them cheap and bad food, and to make them think that they were below their original person? On page two of the Author's argument, he says: "Indeed, if all you had was the genome, and no people around, you’d grow a sort of vertebrate plant, nothing more." This sentence states that if you cloned a person and neglected them, such as isolating them with the outside world, then they would become nothing more than a 'vertebrate plant.' Another thing that Thomas states in the passage is: " But then you’d have to wait for him to grow up through embryonic life and then for at least forty years more, and you’d have to be sure all observers remained patient and unmeddlesome through his unpromising, ambiguous childhood and adolescence. Moreover, you’d have to be sure of recreating his environment, perhaps down to the last detail." I also agree with these two sentences, because one tiny mistake in raising this cloned person could result in their downfall.

[Raymond period 3]

I totally agree with Thomas' argument on cloning, and there are a lot of reasons but mainly because cloning humans would result in a destructive outbreak of humans. Thomas explains that cloning the humans would make it harder for people to raise "Not to mention the complex interpersonal relationship involved in raising one’s self from infancy, teaching the language, enforcing discipline, instilling good manners, and the like." I agree as if we think about it, if we cloned humans exactly, it would be still be the hassle of raising of the clone's mental state, just like there would be with regular humans. The clones would one day take over the population of "naturally born humans" if we have the curiosity to clone at least one, which many humans tend to be. Another big reason is that if we were to clone a lot of people, there would be a lot of less genetic diversity, which prompts to have many people look the same, which could be hard to distinct a person from another person. Let's move on to criteria, if we were to use

(UNFINISHED)

[george]

Feb 28, 2024 10:33:58 GMT -8 adityaraj said:

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.

[Jake Lindsay]

P4. I agree with some points in Thomas' argument about cloning. When it comes to assessing whether a person is suitable for cloning, I think we consider a few criteria. First, we need to ensure that the person being cloned has given their informed consent. It is important to respect individual autonomy and ensure that they fully understand the implications of cloning. Second, we should evaluate the potential impact on the cloned individual's well-being. We need to make sure that the cloning process doesn't result in any physical or psychological harm. Lastly, we should consider the societal implications of cloning. We need to assess whether it would lead to inequalities or discrimination, and if so, find ways to address these concerns. In terms of revising Thomas' argument, I would suggest a few changes. Firstly, I think it is important to acknowledge the ethical concerns surrounding cloning. Thomas' argument should address the potential violation of human dignity and the risks of creating a "manufactured" human being. Additionally, I would emphasize the need for strict regulations and oversight to prevent any misuse or exploitation of cloning technology. Lastly, I would include a discussion on the potential benefits of cloning such as advancements in medical research and the ability to save endangered species. By addressing these points, Thomas' argument would be more balanced and comprehensive.

[Genevieve Chavez Per. 3]

Feb 28, 2024 10:33:58 GMT -8 adityaraj said:

Response to Aditya Raj, P. 3

I agree with your concern on how cloning will eliminate the need to find a mate. How will this impact society? Humans are social creatures and as such our interactions with others are a big part of life. You can see how important it is to find a mate with reality TV shows and the presence of dating apps. With this aspect of our life eliminated, how will we as humans and as a society changed? “Cloned cells” will be an important obstacle to overcome. Not only do the cells have to be as close as possible to the original cells, but they must contain exact copies of DNA in each. It is possible for mutations to the DNA to occur throughout this process, which will harm the clone. However, I disagree with your view that our environment can be replicated so easily. We are shaped by our environment not only physically, but emotionally. We know not to touch hot things because of the pain we’ve experienced in the past. Such experiences cannot be duplicated by virtual reality. Hence, there is something unique about the human experience that cannot be overlooked.

[charis]

I agree with all of Thomas' points. The prospect of cloning a human being is unethical in and of itself, because it implies that some people are more deserving of life than others, and although people already found a way of shortening life (i.e. death row) based on morality, the immortal extension of any person creates a haunting, dystopian hierarchy. Furthermore, in order to acquire the state of being that you want your clone to achieve, a series of endless global cloning will have to proceed in order to recreate that one person (thus resulting in, as Thomas put it, "...a perpetual sort of d**nation"). In my opinion, there is no criteria suitable to assess whether someone is *deserving of immortality* because measuring someone's worth based on their impact is far too capitalist to apply to the global populace. A political leader is not, in theory, more deserving of eternal life than the average woman down the street. Basing a human being's value on their productivity pretty much already describes the country we live in, and extending the punishment by watching the wealthy's re-generated fetuses regenerate in a lab is honestly too depressingly realistic to consider. If I were to revise Thomas' argument, I would say that he should point out how utterly terrifying it is to let anyone clone based on their personal or global achievements in life.

[Cameron Perez (P. 4)]

I agree with the points made by Thomas when it comes to cloning. In the text, he makes the point that for them to be a proper clone, they would have to be raised the same way as the original person, even outside of family. In his words, he says "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." This shows us that raising a clone would be very difficult to do. Another point made by Thomas is that they would be more harmful to society, in which I agree with completely. Another quote from Thomas about this is "For one thing, it would mean replacing today’s world by an entirely identical world to follow immediately, and this means no new, natural, spontaneous, random, chancy children. No children at all, except for the manufactured doubles of those now on the scene. Plus all those identical adults, including all of today’s politicians, all seen double" which tells us that everyone would just be identical and that clones would not be able to fix anything, as their effort would just be the same as what people's efforts are still, showing clones do not benefit society at all.

[Jake Lindsay]

I agree with some points in Thomas' argument about cloning. When it comes to assessing whether a person is suitable for cloning, I think we consider a few criteria. First, we need to ensure that the person being cloned has given their informed consent. It is important to respect individual autonomy and ensure that they fully understand the implications of cloning. Second, we should evaluate the potential impact on the cloned individual's well-being. We need to make sure that the cloning process doesn't result in any physical or psychological harm. Lastly, we should consider the societal implications of cloning. We need to assess whether it would lead to inequalities or discrimination, and if so, find ways to address these concerns. In terms of revising Thomas' argument, I would suggest a few changes. Firstly, I think it is important to acknowledge the ethical concerns surrounding cloning. Thomas' argument should address the potential violation of human dignity and the risks of creating a "manufactured" human being. Additionally, I would emphasize the need for strict regulations and oversight to prevent any misuse or exploitation of cloning technology. Lastly, I would include a discussion on the potential benefits of cloning such as advancements in medical research and the ability to save endangered species. By addressing these points, Thomas' argument would be more balanced and comprehensive. Also, I would consider long-term effects and the ethical responsibility we have towards future generations. Cloning is not just about the here and now; it is about how it shapes the future of humanity. We should have clear guidelines on how the technology is used to avoid potential negative consequences on genetic diversity and the natural evolution of species. Moreover, the psychological aspects of identity and individuality for clones are crucial. They deserve the same rights and opportunities to forge their own paths. (FINISHED VERSION)

[Nate Jarrett]

I do agree with the majority of Thomas’ argument because human cloning would take up a lot of resources and valuable time that could be used for other things. Although I do believe that the idea of cloning would be quite interesting, I value the fact that it might cause more trouble than problems it would solve. I think that choosing someone who should be cloned would be quite difficult because you would need more than just the person said in Thomas’ essay. Recreating the entirety of all the scenes and environments that led up to the so-called “perfect candidate” would inevitably take forever for humans to recreate. The amount of work and workers needed to accomplish such a task are innumerous and quite frankly unwilling. If I were Thomas there are very few and slight changes I would make to this essay. I would state that finding people who are willing to basically give up the rest of their lives just to clone someone they might have no idea about would be nearly impossible. I would also imply that this would become the main focus of the entire world because of the numerous environments and people needed to recreate the living conditions of the candidate. When choosing a worthy candidate for cloning you must account for every possibility of malfunction or error in the system or human errors within the workforce and the candidate. You must also account for the financial cost of this entire project. People would be putting all their working time and earnings into this top secret project that will probably have little to no effect on their daily or future lives. Overall I think that Thomas’ argument is well written and well thought through and needs no alterations to change the way people view cloning.

[Alexia Penaflorida]

Author, Lewis Thomas talks about the intricate rabbit hole necessary for scientists to go down in order to have an accurate clone of a human. I agree with his essay; with the technological advancements of the world today, cloning is definitely a likely reality. Although cloning is not currently a phenomenon that has the world in shambles, it is possible  that it will be in the future. Lewis Thomas states that cloning would be far too difficult because of how perfectly you have to simulate a person's life to get the exact carbon copy. You can't just clone that one person, you must clone their entire bloodline to make sure it's as accurate as possible. In addition, you'd have to make sure the environment they grow up in and the people they know are identical. it would be difficult to maintain the Earth with double the population. Then, the scientists will have to watch the growth of the clone and make sure it is similar to the original. What if something goes wrong that is out of their control? What if the clone gains its own sense of independence and becomes completely different than its original? After all, they were supplied with the characteristics of a human. I think that in order to deem a person suitable, they have to be moderately young so the amount of people they've interacted with are relatively low. Most of their family also has to be alive to make sure they're able to be cloned as well. I also think they have to be very affluent to afford this and pay for the processes and the possibility of it failing. However, In the end, everything depends on the success of the experiment. A singular test will take decades, and what if in the end it didn't replicate correctly? I wouldn't make any changes to Thomas' arguments because I agree with all of his concerns. 

[eric]

    I disagree on Thomas' worries on cloning. In the essay, the main concern for Thomas was that cloning a human would be troublesome in the sense of misused technolegy, and in the sense of scientific impossibility. However, that should not be the point of human cloning. For example, cloning animals in agriculture have advantages such as healthier offspring, and more products. The point of cloning said animal isn't to make a replica for the life that it'll go through, but the positive traits of that animal. If cloning humans are possible years in the future to come, cloned humans with advantages traits fitted for, for example, space exploration and colonization. The use of human cloning shouldn't be used to create invincibility, or infinite lifespan, it should be used as a better way of multiplying human population and selecting positive traits like in dog breeding. One of the problems in the world right now is overpopulation, where many people doesn't have good living conditions and live without food, but that will change in the future. New plants are already researched that will produce more products, massive dystopian structures can all provide for more population. Human cloning can be used beneficially if individuals wouldn't chase after invincibility. This technolegy would be revolutionary for us, and misusing it would be difficult, as most research right now would be done by labs that a delicated to use to for a good purpose. In my opinion, human cloning shouldn't be used to create a exact replica of humans, as its practicality is very high if used in other areas.

[Yutong Li P4]

I agree with Thomas' argumant, and I believe that there should be strict regulation and oversight of cloning. This is to ensure that the rights an well-being of clones are protected and that the technology is not misused for immoral purposes. Without proper regulation, there is risk of cloning being utilized and abused. To asses a person's suitablity for cloning, I would consider factors such as their physical and mental helth, consent, and potential impact on society. To amend part of Thomas's argumant, I would recognize the potential benefits of cloning while also addressing concerns about individuality and potential exploitatance. I believe that human cloning should not be taken lightly and should only be considered in exceptional circumstances, such as for meddical purposes. Strict regulations and ethical considerations must be put in place to ensure the safety and well-being of human clonging.

[Nate Jarrett]

Feb 28, 2024 10:54:17 GMT -8 Corey, Period 3 said:

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?

I agree with Thomas' argument on cloning. Many of the things that he said in the book I agree with. If cloning humans were possible, I believe that it could get out of control very quickly. Some people would begin abusing them, and using cloned humans for unusual purposes. Then there is also the question about if it is ethical to do this type of thing. The criteria that I would use to assess whether a person was suitable to cloning would include: the value of that person, for example if they had a very big impact on the world, and how healthy they are. For example, how susceptible that person is to diseases such as cancer. I wouldn't make any changes to Thomas' argument, but would add questions about the ethical problem to cloning humans. For example, if you were to clone a human being, would it be ethical to treat them badly, as if they were a slave? Would it be ethical to feed them cheap and bad food, and to make them think that they were below their original person? On page two of the Author's argument, he says: "Indeed, if all you had was the genome, and no people around, you’d grow a sort of vertebrate plant, nothing more." This sentence states that if you cloned a person and neglected them, such as isolating them with the outside world, then they would become nothing more than a 'vertebrate plant.' Another thing that Thomas states in the passage is: " But then you’d have to wait for him to grow up through embryonic life and then for at least forty years more, and you’d have to be sure all observers remained patient and unmeddlesome through his unpromising, ambiguous childhood and adolescence. Moreover, you’d have to be sure of recreating his environment, perhaps down to the last detail." I also agree with these two sentences, because one tiny mistake in raising this cloned person could result in their downfall.