Becoming Immortal by Cloning

Hmm... I do wonder how cloining actually really works. I still doubt they could download the mind, but maybe they could put the brain's knowlage into files, and kinda put them into the other clones brain? I know that sounds stupid, but I'm really not that smart when it comes to clones.

 

many news reports and online news too. i a big fan of watching the news, except for news about celebrities, i just change the channel (i could care less about those attention whores XD)

they take a few cells from the original, then nurture it and allow it to survive long enough to turn into a new living being. they do something else to it so that it will multiply faster but i not sure what

 

A cloned human would still not have a human life though. due to it not being a creature, simply a recreation of memories and logic put inside of a body, it would simply belike an aminal. it would base and act out everything on human logic, like an animal acts on instinct.

 

2 twins are not the same persons; 2 clones aren't for the same reason. Scientists have today no real idea how matters consciousness relates to body so it's very farfetched to envision this as long as we can't solve this mystery ... which is THE one mystery of life: we would become God if we knew how to create or even isolate consciousness.

 

It is a theory, like i heard from starwars that the clones lifespan whent faster by two.
I also think it is just a funny thing to add in sci fi i guess.

Humans are dangerous enough as they are, giving them 'godly' powers like immortality would make us more dangerous. cloneing is a bad idea, no matter what, cloning anything living thing ruins someone/s life.
As i said before a clone would not have a soul and/or spirit, so it would never be the same as you, and if you were a criminal, you would be more heartless than before.

That is exactly what i think. it would only copy dna and logic.
nothing deep like a soul. but are you saying the clones would be closer to the sixth sense than the original??

 

This is all under the assumption that the soul and consciousness are two different things, and that's an entire debate altogether. If a person is cloned and they do feel pain, feel empathy, and generally feel, who is anyone to judge that they are not the same same as you or I?

 

True but this is the debate corner is it not?
but you bring up a good argument.
so what is the differnce between a consciousnes and a soul?
soul-the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life
conscience-motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions

sounds like a bit of differance.

 

I honestly don't think it would be right just to make a clone simply to put your brain in it to continue your own life. you would be cheating the clone out of a life!!!

how can people justefy cheating the clone out of a life

 

To be honest, mortals cannot become impossible. We, as humans, have got it in our heads that Death itself is a bad thing, but in reality, it's great. We're only supposed to live for so long, there's a reason we die.

 

well u rly wouldnt be imortal ur clone would just be a copy...
the fact is you would still die and thats that :\
besides being immortal is so over rated

How bout we just live our lives and not play God?

 

Hmmm I actually hope that doesn't happen, cloning to become immortal

I mean think about it... it will be like more people to feed, clothe, house, theyr'e wouldnt be enough suplies and we'd starve and freeze

And come on, if a bully clones his/herself they'red be twice the b****ing, wouldn't it?

 

I truly agree. Science has gotten very far to the point where discoveries like cloning is only to help them to never die, and reached the fact that they can live longer. We aren't God(s), and I don't agree with this, I don't agree on cloning, period. I would never like someone that looks like me, not to mention a copy, to keep living for myself. They need to let it go, yet, I think humanity's greatest fear is Death, and are trying to prevent it as much as possible, hence, they keep going.

I fear dying, but I know everyone has to some day, is the way of life and nature, we're born, we live, we die. Trying to change it will only cause not only overpopulation, but a rift (not that there aren't ones, we're already on Global Warming, but that's another topic).

 

What's to say cloning isn't merely the next step of replacing limbs that were never there? After all the body is made of flesh, but we are making progress in replacing it with mechnical appendages (those who have needed it thus far anyway). Yes I know this is an odd point considering it regards immortality, but I'm looking at this for merely life-extending purposes. For some reason you all seem to have the idea that just because something that can be used as a replacement comes in a fuller form makes it suddenly immoral.

To be completely objective (or as others may read as utterly cynical and cold), we are merely masses of celluar material which are trying to survive. If we, as a species have acquired a means of extending our lifespans we are technically fufilling that goal.

Anyway as for a more moral standing, we've yet to have defined a soul much less what it takes to really "have" a soul. Given that cloning is in on itself a rather astounding feat, we don't have much to fear about it given a majority of the population would probably not be able to afford it anyway.

Also people on their"immortality is wrong"/ life-extending high horses, quick, abandon modern medicine! By technicality all of the successes of modern medicine were brought to you through various procedures that could be considered immoral by your same standards (how do you think they test the effectiveness of the drug?).

Blah blah blaaaah.

 

The discussion for 'Soul' doesn't have to be anywhere in this convo from a scientific point of view. A clone of a person is a NEW person. It is not just a carbon copy. There is enough proof on it. That person has its own life just as every animal ever cloned has its own life and can live just fine whether the original is around, dies etc. So to make a clone of someone and just use it for parts or to somehow transfer the consciousness of the being to the other person is wrong in my book, simply because that new person is a new life and why should it be stuck with someone else's life being implanted in it. Kinda sucks. Or why worse yet should it sit around and be used for parts?

I really am under the impression that if we can clone, we should be able to clone things like -blood- and organs and not even need whole bodies to do so.

As for the immortality thing, eh, I really don't care about that. If it happened that we figured a cure for -aging- suddenly, we would. If there was a cure for aging somehow found, I don't know if a bunch of religious people would say that's just as evil as other things, but how many would hop on the bandwagon to take it, thus making themselves much longer lived unless some other ailment kicks their butts? Remember that cures for ailments in the past have been considered taboo and yet found to work and we use them today. I just think that cloning bodies which could live their own lives, supplanting the mind/memories of the other person over it is like choosing between identical twins who gets to live or not. It cannot be denied in science that this clone is -not- capable of being its own person. Everything in science contradicts that. We have proof of tons of cloned animals.

 

Maybe, but then again we keep comatose people on life support. We also technically desecrate bodies to remove the organs for organ donations. We're also human, so not all of us are ever on the same page when it comes to seeing the means to meet certain ends.

In my opinion, reproducing an entire body would be procedural if say...as an example someone was to be caught in a car accident and are rendered paralyzed from the neck down. Some would find a new body to be a somewhat sensible way to "cure" it. Another is that cloning is merely replication, what if the cloned body excluded the brain? Does it still have a life if the intent for life was never there? Cloning organs is the same as cloning the body if not in smaller bits. The cloned organ could have been intended to have been part of the nonexistant clone body, does that make it wrong? Maybe I've phrased that oddly:

It's the human illusion of something animate vs something inanimate. An arm or stomach that is cloned seems to be overall deemed "ok" but a cloned body with no brain seems to be deemed immoral, I wonder why. Essentially, what makes a cloned arm/stomach missing a body more acceptable than a cloned body missing a brain?

Hopefully my questioning point will be understood this time.

 

If a body was cloned with -no brain- then it would not be able to exist on its own so therefore it isn't on the same level as cloning a person as they are speaking of that has a fully functional brain and overwriting the being's mind with memories and all from another person. That is why I say it is going farther than it should. If a body possesses no way of surviving on its own because it has no brain, to me the discussion changes. However, just putting a fully functional being with a fully functioning brain into existence so that someone else can live, when that clone could seems very callous to me and selfish.

There are people that would say cloning body parts, such as skin, blood, organs, would be wrong but I would disagree with that. My only line I really have to draw is on the fact that a living clone could do fine and live life on its own developing but instead now loses its own existence to that of someone else. Also, we don't know what repercussions this would have on the clone or if the procedure could be done properly at all considering this has not even been accomplished yet on a cloned animal. There could be mental breaking down as well or any number of hormonal issues etc. A clone will be made to hold the memory and life of some former person in it, and people's bodies do change through time and all even as they learn and adapt by life. The brain is very affected by this. So, even though it is theorized as possible, I can see there could be serious drawbacks. I think -cloning- in itself is necessary if we are to be able to do things, just as I believe stem cell research is, but I don't really think this angle of supplanting someone's mind into a clone is really what should be on the top of the list to do when pertaining to cloning. There are so many other things we could do instead that would benefit humanity better.

 

I've watched this show a few months back on posibly cloning people, they said in the next 50 years they will be able to transfer all of your brain into a huge data file that can be programed into robots, computers, mobile divices or almost anything!

But who knows if it could be done, and if it could would it be natural to see your great great great grandson graduate from college?

But if we could we would never worring about diseases, food shortage or having to learn anything. And space travel could be limitless (you could go on forever with no food or air).

But the whole global community would change food would be pointless, air would be pointless, shelter would be pointless, ect. But the only thing that would be of any value is a power source.

 

you should try to be immotal what is the point in living forever you would hav eto be their in war in stuff

 

it wouldn't work for very lng, because of all the genetic deffects that would occur inside of he genes and cells..... after the first few times, the genetic codes would start to break down and would look like mutations.....

 

There are 6 billion people on the planet and the number is climbing. We are nearing the carrying capacity of Earth with our current technology, if we haven't passed it already. Now, if you start making people basically immortal, or even if you just double the human lifespan, the Earth will be in VERY serious trouble. Besides, the human public would never accept the fact that some (most likely the super-rich) people could be immortal. There would be riots in the streets, civil unrest, financial ruin, and anarchy reigning anywhere this practice would be implemented. I think it is theoretically possible to grow a new body exactly like your own (minus whatever traits you picked up in life - scars, weight, etc), but I highly doubt that anyone, even with unlimited funding would be able to transfer someone's consciousness like that. Hell, we don't even know where the consciousness of a person is!

I think that cloning, with a few more advances in the technology, could be most effective in jump-starting existing endangered species. Think about it: We take a few animals, say... Chimpanzees, clone say... 15 specimens about 100 times each (1500 new animals) while jumbling up the genes and traits for each one (to avoid genetic diseases later through inbreeding), and voila! We now have 1500 new, distinct chimps to add to the wild population! The same process could be applied to any other endangered species, and theoretically, any species we could find DNA for - the Dodo. The Mammoth. Neanderthal Man (Homo neandertalensis)? Maybe, but not advisable. The giant sloth. Other, recently-extinct species (ones that we ourselves killed). All these could possibly be revived.

Now THIS, I could see happening - an almost limitless store of past human existance that the humans of centuries later could draw from, as long as the devices to store us didn't fail.