5 ms·

Full human cloning won't take off because it's too unethical - not because of lack of technological capabilities.

by xmprt 3y ago

ivalm 3y ago
Why is it unethical (if we are good enough to avoid genetic abnormalities/mistakes)?
- fieldcny 3y ago
  Really?!?! I think anyone who wants to clone themselves is too full of shit to allowed to be cloned.
  - ivalm 3y ago
    Why? We allow people to have children, why can't they have clones? We can still grant these clones all the normal human rights.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  It gets into "playing god" territory without many justifiable reasons to do it. Who is responsible for a child born as a clone? What is the purpose of cloning them instead of encouraging people to have children the normal way? Things like artificial wombs would be getting into similar territory, but unlike cloning they have justified ethical medical uses such as enabling women who can't carry a child in their own womb for any reason to still have a child.
  - ivalm 3y ago
    We play god all the time, and I'm glad for it. Little about human habitat is natural, it's all reshaped to our need by us. In terms of responsibility, it can be the same as normal children -- either they are assigned parents or they are wards of the state. They should have same rights as other people.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      The point about playing god isn't about it being unnatural, but that you're touching against some fundamental things about being human and our limited understanding of the limits of things something of a similar intelligence level should be subjected to. Responsibility was just one example of the ethical quandries that arise with cloning thrown into the mix, why should we create cloned children when the state already can't do good by orphaned children? How do inheritance rights play out? What do we make of things like DNA tests as meaningful evidence in criminal cases? Who gets to have themselves cloned, and how do you prevent misuse of the technology? Is it misuse to say, store the DNA of the best soldiers, best athletes etc so as to create clones to meet demand in those areas? And if that isn't the intention for cloning, why do cloning at all instead of something like artificial wombs? Is it worth the suffering of all the imperfect clones (and the surrogate mothers within whom they'd be grown) that will inevitably be produced during the development of the technology? How do we deal with reproductive rights of clones and their impact on genetic diversity? Children who are raised in the foster system will typically have a harder time than those who have families which can provide financial backing, so unless the clone is raised by a family as their own child, we'd effectively be creating a subservient class by cloning, since while with normal children, losing their family is not necessarily known ahead of time, with a clone that isn't the case. As it stands, we aren't even mature enough to have a proper conversation about the much less dangerous ethics of creating rudimentary "intelligences" in the form of current generation AI. How are we, as a society, supposed to then have a proper conversation about the ethics of creating full human intelligences? With normal children we can at least point to a biological imperative.
      - ivalm 3y ago
        These all seem very solvable. Also, when I say “cloned” I mean also a broader set of technologies, such as artificial wombs and genetic designer babies. If desired all couples should have the ability to create children in artificial wombs and have them be exact clones or some designed mixes. These mixes/clones can contain their own dna or that of others. In general, I think genetic sequences should be open source and if we get a ton of Einsteins, Michael Jordans, etc then we’re better for it. > why should we create cloned children when the state already can't do good by orphaned children Same as why we have children at all, some people want to have children that are their own. > unless the clone is raised by a family as their own child, we'd effectively be creating a subservient class by cloning, since while with normal children, losing their family is not necessarily known ahead of time, with a clone that isn't the case. I absolutely agree that all children should be when possible with parents and clones/design babies need to be given the same care/rights/support as normal children. > Is it worth the suffering of all the imperfect clones (and the surrogate mothers within whom they'd be grown) that will inevitably be produced during the development of the technology? We develop it not on humans first. We then use it to design babies for parents with genetic abnormalities. > How do we deal with reproductive rights of clones and their impact on genetic diversity? We grant them all rights. I think there will naturally be enough diversity, and monoculture scare is less meaningful when we can breed new generations with proper adaptations. Essentially we can get almost all benefits of having a diverse genetic pool (and I do think we should financially incentivize diversity). > How are we, as a society, supposed to then have a proper conversation about the ethics of creating full human intelligences? With normal children we can at least point to a biological imperative. I don’t think there is any difference between normal children, cloned children, and designed children.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  It depends a bit on what the clone is made for. If someone just wants a child identical to some other human for esthetic reasons, the ethics seem mostly ok. The biggest ethical concern here would be obtaining true consent from the person being cloned, probably. But the typical interests in creating a clone are related to exploitation of the clone without regard to their own desires. Simple organ harvesting is a popular reason to desire a clone. More indirect forms of exploitation are also thought about, like a company creating a clone of, say, Elvis Presley to sell his image, or someone creating a clone of a dead/aging lover as an ultimate form of child grooming.
  - causality0 3y ago
    I don't personally see anything wrong with modifying a zygote's genetic code to create a body without a brain and then harvesting it for organs. Much more moral than meat farming, even.
  - Vox_Leone 3y ago
    "Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status (...) All day long we hear him crying so loud 'I just wanna be myself! I just wanna be myself'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1h38gC23bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1h38gC23bw
  - c22 3y ago
    > ...or someone creating a clone of a dead/aging lover as an ultimate form of child grooming. Or the somehow worse sounding prospect of someone doing this with a clone of someone who was not their lover, say Elvis.
  - ivalm 3y ago
    I think the simplest desire for cloning is propagation of one's own genetic code. I strongly believe that these clones should be accorded all the privileges and rights of normal humans.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
It’s also unnecessary, there are tons of kids to adopt that people don’t. Secular society just doesn’t want enough kids to sustain itself.
- serf 3y ago
  adopting children doesn't allow oneself the vanity of reproducing the greatest genes ever known to history -- their own. and I say this not as a jest, but as a mere point that the two markets (adoption/cloning) may not overlap.
c22 3y ago
That makes no sense. Human history is littered with unethical acts.
smokel 3y ago
You could use the same argument for the two World Wars in the 20th century.
- xmprt 3y ago
  Wars don't just appear out of thin air. There were a lot of incentives for countries to engage in war. Cloning doesn't really benefit anyone and doing cloning requires a ton of funding and grants and ethics boards reviews. If you're interested in the history of human cloning (and where that field of research is trending towards), I'd recommend watching this video [1]. Full human cloning is somewhat pointless however the research has lead to innovations in stem cell research which does have real benefits for things like organ transplants. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ett_8wLJ87U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ett_8wLJ87U

Full human cloning won't take off because it's too unethical - not because of lack of technological capabilities.

by xmprt 3y ago

Full human cloning won't take off because it's too unethical - not because of lack of technological capabilities.

ivalm 3y ago

Why is it unethical (if we are good enough to avoid genetic abnormalities/mistakes)?

fieldcny 3y ago
Really?!?! I think anyone who wants to clone themselves is too full of shit to allowed to be cloned.
- ivalm 3y ago
  Why? We allow people to have children, why can't they have clones? We can still grant these clones all the normal human rights.
dotnet00 3y ago
It gets into "playing god" territory without many justifiable reasons to do it. Who is responsible for a child born as a clone? What is the purpose of cloning them instead of encouraging people to have children the normal way? Things like artificial wombs would be getting into similar territory, but unlike cloning they have justified ethical medical uses such as enabling women who can't carry a child in their own womb for any reason to still have a child.
- ivalm 3y ago
  We play god all the time, and I'm glad for it. Little about human habitat is natural, it's all reshaped to our need by us. In terms of responsibility, it can be the same as normal children -- either they are assigned parents or they are wards of the state. They should have same rights as other people.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    The point about playing god isn't about it being unnatural, but that you're touching against some fundamental things about being human and our limited understanding of the limits of things something of a similar intelligence level should be subjected to. Responsibility was just one example of the ethical quandries that arise with cloning thrown into the mix, why should we create cloned children when the state already can't do good by orphaned children? How do inheritance rights play out? What do we make of things like DNA tests as meaningful evidence in criminal cases? Who gets to have themselves cloned, and how do you prevent misuse of the technology? Is it misuse to say, store the DNA of the best soldiers, best athletes etc so as to create clones to meet demand in those areas? And if that isn't the intention for cloning, why do cloning at all instead of something like artificial wombs? Is it worth the suffering of all the imperfect clones (and the surrogate mothers within whom they'd be grown) that will inevitably be produced during the development of the technology? How do we deal with reproductive rights of clones and their impact on genetic diversity? Children who are raised in the foster system will typically have a harder time than those who have families which can provide financial backing, so unless the clone is raised by a family as their own child, we'd effectively be creating a subservient class by cloning, since while with normal children, losing their family is not necessarily known ahead of time, with a clone that isn't the case. As it stands, we aren't even mature enough to have a proper conversation about the much less dangerous ethics of creating rudimentary "intelligences" in the form of current generation AI. How are we, as a society, supposed to then have a proper conversation about the ethics of creating full human intelligences? With normal children we can at least point to a biological imperative.
    - ivalm 3y ago
      These all seem very solvable. Also, when I say “cloned” I mean also a broader set of technologies, such as artificial wombs and genetic designer babies. If desired all couples should have the ability to create children in artificial wombs and have them be exact clones or some designed mixes. These mixes/clones can contain their own dna or that of others. In general, I think genetic sequences should be open source and if we get a ton of Einsteins, Michael Jordans, etc then we’re better for it. > why should we create cloned children when the state already can't do good by orphaned children Same as why we have children at all, some people want to have children that are their own. > unless the clone is raised by a family as their own child, we'd effectively be creating a subservient class by cloning, since while with normal children, losing their family is not necessarily known ahead of time, with a clone that isn't the case. I absolutely agree that all children should be when possible with parents and clones/design babies need to be given the same care/rights/support as normal children. > Is it worth the suffering of all the imperfect clones (and the surrogate mothers within whom they'd be grown) that will inevitably be produced during the development of the technology? We develop it not on humans first. We then use it to design babies for parents with genetic abnormalities. > How do we deal with reproductive rights of clones and their impact on genetic diversity? We grant them all rights. I think there will naturally be enough diversity, and monoculture scare is less meaningful when we can breed new generations with proper adaptations. Essentially we can get almost all benefits of having a diverse genetic pool (and I do think we should financially incentivize diversity). > How are we, as a society, supposed to then have a proper conversation about the ethics of creating full human intelligences? With normal children we can at least point to a biological imperative. I don’t think there is any difference between normal children, cloned children, and designed children.
tsimionescu 3y ago
It depends a bit on what the clone is made for. If someone just wants a child identical to some other human for esthetic reasons, the ethics seem mostly ok. The biggest ethical concern here would be obtaining true consent from the person being cloned, probably. But the typical interests in creating a clone are related to exploitation of the clone without regard to their own desires. Simple organ harvesting is a popular reason to desire a clone. More indirect forms of exploitation are also thought about, like a company creating a clone of, say, Elvis Presley to sell his image, or someone creating a clone of a dead/aging lover as an ultimate form of child grooming.
- causality0 3y ago
  I don't personally see anything wrong with modifying a zygote's genetic code to create a body without a brain and then harvesting it for organs. Much more moral than meat farming, even.
- Vox_Leone 3y ago
  "Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status (...) All day long we hear him crying so loud 'I just wanna be myself! I just wanna be myself'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1h38gC23bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1h38gC23bw
- c22 3y ago
  > ...or someone creating a clone of a dead/aging lover as an ultimate form of child grooming. Or the somehow worse sounding prospect of someone doing this with a clone of someone who was not their lover, say Elvis.
- ivalm 3y ago
  I think the simplest desire for cloning is propagation of one's own genetic code. I strongly believe that these clones should be accorded all the privileges and rights of normal humans.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

It’s also unnecessary, there are tons of kids to adopt that people don’t. Secular society just doesn’t want enough kids to sustain itself.

serf 3y ago
adopting children doesn't allow oneself the vanity of reproducing the greatest genes ever known to history -- their own. and I say this not as a jest, but as a mere point that the two markets (adoption/cloning) may not overlap.

c22 3y ago

That makes no sense. Human history is littered with unethical acts.

smokel 3y ago

You could use the same argument for the two World Wars in the 20th century.

xmprt 3y ago
Wars don't just appear out of thin air. There were a lot of incentives for countries to engage in war. Cloning doesn't really benefit anyone and doing cloning requires a ton of funding and grants and ethics boards reviews. If you're interested in the history of human cloning (and where that field of research is trending towards), I'd recommend watching this video [1]. Full human cloning is somewhat pointless however the research has lead to innovations in stem cell research which does have real benefits for things like organ transplants. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ett_8wLJ87U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ett_8wLJ87U