Cameron Perez (P. 4)
Guest
|
Post by Cameron Perez (P. 4) on Feb 28, 2024 11:38:20 GMT -8
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. I agree with what you are saying because if clones were raised, it would be very likely that some people would try to use them for negative people, or conduct experiments on them that could strongly affect society. Like you said, if you were to neglect a clone, and abuse it, or just treat it very terrible, and isolate it from the outside world, the clone would be nothing more than just a "vertebrate plant". The term vertrebrate is typically used for animals with bony or cartilaginous axial endoskeletons. So, by using it to describe a clone as a vertebrate plant, it can imply that they would be very weak, or useless, and that they would just be some experiment to people without any consideration of what clones can actually do. |
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 28, 2024 11:38:48 GMT -8
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.
I agree with most of your points, except I don't see why it would be worrisome if humanity eliminated the need to find a partner. Singleness is not the bane of existence, and sexual reproduction is not crucial to the human identity beyond, well, reproduction. Childbirth and pregnancy are not merely frustrating, but extremely dangerous. A person's body is irreversibly changed after the childbearing process, not to mention that it's a likely possibility to die during labor. In fact, I think that the frightening aspect of cloning does not come from an individual's lack of sexual partner, because that is creating genetic diversity. Furthermore, the possibility that children would not need sexual reproduction to be born doesn't signify the extinction of romantic and sexual attraction in human beings as a whole. It is extremely plausible that a married couple would partake in genetically creating their children. |
|
|
|
Post by Maya on Feb 28, 2024 11:39:49 GMT -8
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. I agree with this because it would be safer to have someone else who can be pregnat carry your egg then clone and mix the cells then something be wrong with the baby that could damage it heath or put it in danger. Also it could make the childs life harsh and not be able to live like an other kid. It could also make the chances of surviving very low. Plus everyone is different and it could do different things to different people. |
|
|
|
Post by Madison John on Feb 28, 2024 11:41:16 GMT -8
P.4 I agree with Thomas on some parts of his argument. I think if he had more structural evidence that backed up his statement that it would be more accepted by many the have read the story. I think his overall message to create a successful version of immortality, one would not only have to create a genetically identical specimen but also create an identical environment for that individual in order for them to advance and progress their predecessor's works. When he describes this version of immortality it can give us a sense that it is for teh best and beneefical for their health and future. Although this is a strong reason for immortality, when he talks about the idea of a identical environment for that individual may defeat some ideas for immortality, since if you will live forever why would you stay in the same environment and continue doing things and projects you have been doing your whole life before. I don't think cloning a human would be perfect though.What would teh criteria be and would they have their own thought process and conscious? I don't think that would push mankind into the better part of the future. I would revise some parts but maybe add to it the criteria of which ou should clone a human or even if you can clone yourself. He can also maybe go into the specifics of immortality and their environment which they would thrive or deteriorate. As an overview of the essay, "On cloning a Human Being" by lewis Thomas I agree and disagree with parts or all of Thomas’ argument on cloning. I would have to complete research to figure out what criteria I would use to assess whether a person was suitable for cloning. The changes I would make to revise parts of Thomas’ argument would be the credibilty of it and the specifics of what his main purpose is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Lindsay on Feb 28, 2024 11:41:16 GMT -8
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. 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 strongly agree with how the opinion can be changed or revised when talking about the topic of cloning. He makes a great point on if someone is ill or unhealthy that if you clone them they will create more ill or unhealthy people which is very bad for the environment. Another statement I agree with is when Ryan states if we try cloning on animals first just to see if there are any side effects it would be better than just jumping to conclusions and trying it on a human first. Lastly, I would say ryan is completely right on how cloning can be controversial and people will have mixed feelings about the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Yutong Li P4 on Feb 28, 2024 17:49:12 GMT -8
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. I agree with you that it would be a bad idea to clone another human being. Secondly, I think that the criteria that you chose for selecting a person to clone are good: affect on society, intelligence, and one's physical build and capabilities are important criteria to consider if a person should be cloned and to add, for what reason to have that person cloned. The only reason to do such a thing is to have someone look like another person of importance like a president of a country, in order to protect the real person in case of an assassination attempt on the president. |
|
|
|
Post by Miyala Coulialy on Feb 28, 2024 18:04:46 GMT -8
I agree with all of Thomas's argument.Cloning should not be allowed. Clones would not be identical to the original person. The environment and people shape a lot of who we are. As Thomas argued If we want the clone to act exactly the same, they would have to be raised by the same people and environment. In order to do this would have cloned more people, and would quickly spiral out of control. Even though I argued with Thomas' argument I think there are more reasons he could have discussed why cloning is bad. He could have talked about more ethical issues, like who would be able to afford to be cloned, the failure rate of cloning and more. I don't think any person should be allowed to be cloned. It would be almost impossible to perfectly a replicate a person's personality.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylor t on Feb 28, 2024 18:12:40 GMT -8
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.
I agree with your opinion that cloning is impractical and ultimately damaging to society. However, I also agree with the idea that effective cloning would not be able to be utilized until far later along in the timeline of humanity. Therefore, the damages on cloning and what they could do to society as we know it would be an issue both difficult to bring about and ultimately irrelevant to society today. I believe a more compelling issue that the author failed to address are the drawbacks of doing such experiments and testing with the goal of creating a clone. For example, what is one to do when a replication of a person only half works; the clone is most definitely alive, but what justifies keeping the clone? Such issues that will most definitely come down the line challenge the human psyche and society as a whole. Without the support of society, which the majority would certainly be furious by the waste of human life, how are these experiments to merely continue? |
|
|
|
Post by taylor t on Feb 28, 2024 18:23:03 GMT -8
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. I agree with your opinion that cloning is a difficult process that ultimately should not be done. Like you mentioned, the purpose of cloning someone is utterly hopeless, unless you choose that person for their physique. Cloning an individual in no circumstances means that their conscience, personality, ideas, etc. will carry over to the cloned version of themselves. The idea of recreating one's life to be the exact same in order to bring the same person into existence is both unimaginable and nearly impossible. When thinking about this topic, I am reminded of the movie, the Truman Show, which follows a man who is being constantly recorded in an artificially constructed world for the sake of entertainment. Although he doesn't realize he is in fact in a false reality until around his early twenties, he finds out nonetheless. The idea that humans could ever possibly recreate reality to such a minute detail that they can properly clone someone to be even close to their previous psyche is preposterous, and should not be tried for the sake of society and the rights of individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by Nate Jarrett on Feb 28, 2024 18:30:26 GMT -8
P.4 I agree with Thomas on some parts of his argument. I think if he had more structural evidence that backed up his statement that it would be more accepted by many the have read the story. I think his overall message to create a successful version of immortality, one would not only have to create a genetically identical specimen but also create an identical environment for that individual in order for them to advance and progress their predecessor's works. When he describes this version of immortality it can give us a sense that it is for teh best and beneefical for their health and future. Although this is a strong reason for immortality, when he talks about the idea of a identical environment for that individual may defeat some ideas for immortality, since if you will live forever why would you stay in the same environment and continue doing things and projects you have been doing your whole life before. I don't think cloning a human would be perfect though.What would teh criteria be and would they have their own thought process and conscious? I don't think that would push mankind into the better part of the future. I would revise some parts but maybe add to it the criteria of which ou should clone a human or even if you can clone yourself. He can also maybe go into the specifics of immortality and their environment which they would thrive or deteriorate. As an overview of the essay, "On cloning a Human Being" by lewis Thomas I agree and disagree with parts or all of Thomas’ argument on cloning. I would have to complete research to figure out what criteria I would use to assess whether a person was suitable for cloning. The changes I would make to revise parts of Thomas’ argument would be the credibilty of it and the specifics of what his main purpose is. 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 the fact that cloning will not be or create a better future for humanity and I also agree that immorality, even if it is achievable, is probably not a good idea. However, I think that it would be quite difficult for Thomas’ to add more factual evidence supporting his theory due to the fact that cloning has never been attempted before and is probably nowhere near being fully or even partially operational. I do agree with almost all of your statements but this is the only thing that is a little troubling for me because of the lack of true evidence that can be used to support his theories. |
|
|
|
Post by Nate Jarrett on Feb 28, 2024 18:59:19 GMT -8
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. 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 your statements that say that the clonee must give their full consent and be of sound mind and body. Also stating that more of the focus should be put on the well being of the person being cloned is a great point that did not occur to me at all. I completely agree with the argument that supervision and oversight is 100% necessary in the event of a malfunction and for the need of strict regulations and rules for and against anything that may or may not happen. I do think that maybe cloning could be used to a medical advantage if it is used properly but people are unreliable and greedy and could take this technology and use it for the wrong reasons |
|
|
|
Post by Kaden Dhalla on Feb 28, 2024 20:04:44 GMT -8
Thomas expresses reasonable concerns regarding the potential difficulties and ethical consequences of human cloning, which I mostly share. His thesis emphasizes the complications involved in attempting to imitate humans, both practically and philosophically. One of the primary difficulties he discusses is the existential quandary that cloning creates, in which the cloned individual may struggle with issues of identity, autonomy, or belonging. This speaks to me because it emphasizes the inherent importance and individuality of each human, which could be jeopardized in a world where cloning is commonplace. Furthermore, Thomas correctly emphasizes the importance of replicating not only the genetic material, but also the full environment and social interactions of the original human. This underlines the enormous hurdles and uncertainties inherent with cloning, which is more than just replicating DNA; it is also about recreating a complex web of experiences and influences that define a person's identity and personality. This feature of cloning highlights the technology's fundamental limitations and raises serious ethical concerns concerning the basis of individuality and selfhood. When determining whether a person is eligible for cloning, I would evaluate various factors. First, their overall contribution to society and mankind would be critical. This extends beyond IQ or physical traits to include moral character, empathy, and the potential for good effect. Furthermore, the lack of substantial hereditary health concerns or genetic abnormalities is critical to ensure the clone's survival. Furthermore, permission, autonomy, and the potential psychological impact on both the original person and the clone must be carefully evaluated. To update some of Thomas' reasoning, I would emphasize the importance of careful ethical reflection and public debate before pursuing any advances in human cloning technology. Furthermore, I believe that encouraging diversity and innovation above attempting to reproduce individuals is consistent with humanity's natural progression and advancement. Finally, I would highlight the potential psychological and existential issues that clones may encounter, underlining the significance of maintaining individual individuality and uniqueness in any talks about cloning technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey, Period 3 on Feb 28, 2024 21:44:31 GMT -8
I agree with all of Thomas's argument.Cloning should not be allowed. Clones would not be identical to the original person. The environment and people shape a lot of who we are. As Thomas argued If we want the clone to act exactly the same, they would have to be raised by the same people and environment. In order to do this would have cloned more people, and would quickly spiral out of control. Even though I argued with Thomas' argument I think there are more reasons he could have discussed why cloning is bad. He could have talked about more ethical issues, like who would be able to afford to be cloned, the failure rate of cloning and more. I don't think any person should be allowed to be cloned. It would be almost impossible to perfectly a replicate a person's personality. I agree with you Miyala that cloning should not be allowed. Like you said, it is very hard to replicate a person exactly as they are, as the environment and the people they grew up with shaped them. I also agree with your second argument, that things could quickly spiral out of control. I think Thomas could also have argued more reasons, such as the ethical issues with cloning, like you mentioned in the seventh sentence. For example, would it be ethical to force them to do hard labor while the person that they were cloned from benefits? |
|
|
|
Post by Izabel G. on Feb 28, 2024 23:30:02 GMT -8
For the most part, I agree with most of Thomas’ arguments. He makes clear, critical points about the theoretical cloning process. The main point, being that such an experiment as big as this would just not work. This can be inferred from the text, as he states, “You must clone the world, no less. We are not ready for an experiment of this size, nor, I should think, are we willing” (Page 3, paragraphs 12-13). He is very clear about his opinion about how the process, if played out in real life, would simply fail to succeed by its sheer quantitative need. Another good point that is suggested by Thomas is that what it takes to truly clone someone is not just by genetics, or as he states genomes, but by the environment in one’s own life. I agree with his statements that a person’s environment truly affects how they are formed as a person. With such environments some can’t even be recreated. He first mentions this idea as he asserts, “Moreover, you’d have to be sure of recreating his environment, perhaps down to the last detail. ‘Environment’ is a word which really means people, so you’d have to do a lot more cloning than just the diplomat himself” (Page 2, paragraph 7). My main takeaway from this quote is that he is announcing a big problem with the recreation of one person, the necessity of also needing to recreate everyone else involved with the childhood of one person. This is added on to when he states, “acknowledge that the environment does make a difference, and when you examine what we really mean by the word “environment” it comes down to other human beings.” A plethora of problems emerge when needing an exact replica, because, as he explains, the environment to raise said replica is the people in their life. To assess whether a person would be suitable for cloning I would say the criteria would be basic critical thinking and emotional intelligence. These two are important to ensure that a clone made of said person with the criteria does good on their part. A clone signifies an extension of one person, and I think whether a person has a say or not in their clone’s upbringing that they should be able to protect a previous legacy of a life, that they will not do bad to tarnish it. I wouldn’t make any ‘revisions’ to Thomas’ argument other than the idea to emphasize just how cumbersome it would be to have to clone the entire population on earth. He does a great job correlating the necessary processes of many lives for a single replication process for one clone of one person, but I would stress more how exasperating that would be. He does state, however, that it would be ‘too big of a task to do’ with the entire world, and I appreciate the smaller details going into the big picture of the harrowing theoretical process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Izabel G. on Feb 28, 2024 23:58:35 GMT -8
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. I agree it is morally wrong to "harvest" a clone's organs or limbs. They become real humans, and like you said, have the capabilities to experience human emotions and feel human senses. It is crazy to think that a real person's sole purpose could be forced to be so void, or so gruesome. I do think this begs to question a lot of aspects of our normal life as a society. I mean, a clone would certainly not wish to be turned into medical supplies, for human gain. So my question is, is this situation applicable to our own lives? By that I mean, is this otherworldly, theoretical scenario relative to parts of our society? If so, in what ways? What came to mind when I first came up with the question is the consumption of animals. If animals are capable of emotion and feelings, is it justified to turn them into a source for human consumption? As I said with the clone not wanting to be a walking hospital supply cabinet, would an animal wish to be a meal? Personally, I'm not vegan or even vegetarian, but now I am genuinely curious. |
|
