Argument/Persuasion: “On Cloning a Human Being”

[Gabby Sensi]

I agree with all parts of Thomas's argument on cloning, so I do not believe that cloning should become the new normal and people should not be cloned. The possibility of cloning working out successfully is very low. There are so many different things that could go wrong during the whole process which could lead to a very bad outcome. Cloning is a very difficult procedure. First off, I don't even understand the benefits of it but most importantly how do you even choose the correct person to clone. 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. Cloning is unethical and could have serious ramifications on the world.

[gabby sensi]

Feb 28, 2024 11:41:16 GMT -8 Madison John said:

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.

I agree with what you are saying because of how 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? Or would the "new you" be a completely different person with a whole new personality and lifestyle

[gabby sensi]

Feb 28, 2024 10:53:43 GMT -8 Wyatt Turner P. 3 said:

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

I agree with what you are saying when you say it is a overall bad idea. when the person is clones it 100 percent will be hard to control because of how it is almost nearly impossible to make the clone go through all of the same experiences, heartbreak, pain, happiness, and just overall life that the original has gone through. I also agree with thomas on the paper.

[gabby sensi]

Feb 28, 2024 11:41:16 GMT -8 Madison John said:

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.

I agree with what you say when 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.

[Nadia Lycklama]

In my opinion, I agree with everything Lewis Thomas said in his essay, "On Cloning a Human Being". Just like him, I personally believe that cloning is useless and there are many other alternatives. In the essay, he says that cloning is theoretically possible with advanced technology, but if you were to make an exact clone, it would be time consuming and overall not worth it. You would have to clone everyone that the parent donor has interacted with and who those people have interacted with, and so on. This would mean you would have to clone the whole world, so in the end, there wouldn’t really be a point. The criteria I would use to assess if a person was suitable for cloning would be their personalities, key traits, income, and the environment they live in. The person would have to have some common sense and intelligence so that their clone isn’t just another dumb person walking around. Having a good income and a good and safe environment would ensure that the clone will grow up to be a good person that knows to make the right choices and that it will always be supported. Personally, I wouldn’t make any changes to Thomas’ argument since I think it is valid and fair. His argument points out how unneeded cloning is and how much work and time it would take.

[Nadia Lycklama]

Feb 29, 2024 8:43:04 GMT -8 Gabby Sensi said:

I agree with all parts of Thomas's argument on cloning, so I do not believe that cloning should become the new normal and people should not be cloned. The possibility of cloning working out successfully is very low. There are so many different things that could go wrong during the whole process which could lead to a very bad outcome. Cloning is a very difficult procedure. First off, I don't even understand the benefits of it but most importantly how do you even choose the correct person to clone. 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. Cloning is unethical and could have serious ramifications on the world.

I agree with Gabby since I think she makes a solid and valid point. Cloning could have a harmful and negative effect on the world and everyone around them. There could be some accidents during the process which could result in a defective clone. Like she said, it could cause chaos and dismay leading to a damaged society. Cloning would have some very negative effects on the world, so like Gabby said, I agree that cloning should not become the new normal.

[Nadia Lycklama]

Feb 28, 2024 10:53:39 GMT -8 makenna h said:

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 too much power

I agree with Kenna and I think she makes a good point. Cloning could lead to problems with technology and it could lead to over empowerment. There could be many faults with the cloning process. I also agree with how someone must qualify to have a clone. They must be adequate like Kenna said and it would have to be planned and thought through. I also agree with how they should check on the person during the cloning process. Overall I think Kenna makes a good point and I agree with her.