Cloning Humans: Implications and Repercussions

[BringerOfLight]

Lets just say (hypothetically) that scientists manage to perfect the process of cloning living things (90+% success rate and no accelerated aging) and develop the necessary technologies to create extensive cloning vats with the capacity of producing cloned humans at a rate similar to the world's population growth. Than the idea comes along to take only the world's most brilliant and successful people and to clone them until the world consists only of said people (something might have to be done to prevent the existing population from reproducing to ensure this effecy). Would you agree or disagree with such an idea and why?

[Terr Fangbite]

No because there is something said for individuality. Problems with mankind add just as much flavor as solutions. How fun would this board be without a rabid trekkie or fundie?

[wolveraptor]

Genetics is not the end-all determiner of personality. Everyone will be equal, but some will be more equal than others. But then again, what the hell does Orwell know?

In all seriousness, the method of determining "brilliance" needs to be presented before creating a conclusion. And as I stated before, genius needs a suitable habitat to grow in. You can have Einstein's genes, but not have the drive.

[Darth Wong]

Removing almost all of humanity's genetic diversity would be incredibly stupid.

[Robert Walper]

the idea comes along to take only the world's most brilliant and successful people and to clone them until the world consists only of said people

Removing almost all of humanity's genetic diversity would be incredibly stupid.

Kinda puts humanity in perspective, huh?

[Enforcer Talen]

inbreeding is bad, mmkay?

[Darth Lucifer]

Would you agree or disagree with such an idea and why?

No, for the sheer fact that to implement your idea, you would have to off everyone on the face of the planet that didn't fit your (undefined) criteria to qualify as uber-human to clone in this scenario.

There was a guy named Adolf who watched the Olympics and got really pissed I seem to recall...

[Lord Poe]

One thing everyone seems to forget is, you may be able to clone the body, but not the mind. You could clone Einstein, but he'd be just a mindless oaf.

That said, are their any studies about those sheep and (IIRC) cats that show whether or not the cloned creatures retain natural feline or sheep instincts?

[Darth Wong]

One thing everyone seems to forget is, you may be able to clone the body, but not the mind. You could clone Einstein, but he'd be just a mindless oaf.

Well, he'd be a little baby boy. Given his tremendous innate intelligence, the clone would no doubt perform spectacularly in school and become a great scientist if raised properly and encouraged in that direction.

[Lord Poe]

Well, he'd be a little baby boy. Given his tremendous innate intelligence, the clone would no doubt perform spectacularly in school and become a great scientist if raised properly and encouraged in that direction.

But do you think he'd be exceptional, as Einstein-Prime was, or just a mediocre scientist, or a peer of say, Stephen Hawking?

[Darth Wong]

Well, he'd be a little baby boy. Given his tremendous innate intelligence, the clone would no doubt perform spectacularly in school and become a great scientist if raised properly and encouraged in that direction.

But do you think he'd be exceptional, as Einstein-Prime was, or just a mediocre scientist, or a peer of say, Stephen Hawking?

There's no way to know that. For all you know he might get into drugs in university. But he would certainly have the aptitude for it.

PS. Wait a minute, I woke up an hour ago because it's 7AM here on the eastern seaboard. But for you, it's fucking 4AM! Get some sleep, man!

[Lord Poe]

There's no way to know that. For all you know he might get into drugs in university. But he would certainly have the aptitude for it.

That would be funny seeing Einstein as "Van Wilder"!

PS. Wait a minute, I woke up an hour ago because it's 7AM here on the eastern seaboard. But for you, it's fucking 4AM! Get some sleep, man!

I know...! I went to bed shortly after that, then woke up about 5 hours later! I've got to take Tylenol PM tonight to knock myself out early!

[Guardsman Bass]

A society of geniuses and Michael Jordans probably would not work out well, what with all the egos rubbing each other. You need a mix of smart and normal people acting intelligently.

[BringerOfLight]

in all seriousness, the method of determining "brilliance" needs to be presented before creating a conclusion. And as I stated before, genius needs a suitable habitat to grow in. You can have Einstein's genes, but not have the drive.

Well, in terms of defining cloning material, I'm sorry but wouldn't it be incredibly obvious to tell who has the right stuff? Namely, (and as was clearly mentioned before) wouldn't it be easy to seperate the people who have proven their brilliance through contributing significantly to society from your average joes? Now yes the selection pool could potentially be broad in it's potential patients but theres absolutely nothing saying that we must include every single person who has done something to make life better.

And as far as habitat goes, lets just say that that all the clones are raised in a habitat designed to promote them into reaching their potential. I would say that this would be difficult but feasible task given the gradual and controlled nature of the cloned births.

No, for the sheer fact that to implement your idea, you would have to off everyone on the face of the planet that didn't fit your (undefined) criteria to qualify as uber-human to clone in this scenario.

There was a guy named Adolf who watched the Olympics and got really pissed I seem to recall...

Okay so your arguing this from an emotional/moral perspective rather than a logical one (at least in the context of human progress and development), thats understandable I suppose. Does the means justify the end in your opinion however?

Removing almost all of humanity's genetic diversity would be incredibly stupid.

Well, I don't know quite enough about genetics and heredity to debate these assertions but what exactly are the repercussions of limiting genetic diversity? Would humans be unable to adapt as well against certain changes in their environment? If so, what exactly would cause these changes and more importantly, would they apply to modern society?

[BringerOfLight]

:missed this part in my last post:

A society of geniuses and Michael Jordans probably would not work out well, what with all the egos rubbing each other. You need a mix of smart and normal people acting intelligently.

Ah, but wouldn't perhaps knowing that everyone around you is quite possibly just as smart as you diminish your ego in some way?

[Morilore]

Well, in terms of defining cloning material, I'm sorry but wouldn't it be incredibly obvious to tell who has the right stuff? Namely, (and as was clearly mentioned before) wouldn't it be easy to seperate the people who have proven their brilliance through contributing significantly to society from your average joes? Now yes the selection pool could potentially be broad in it's potential patients but theres absolutely nothing saying that we must include every single person who has done something to make life better.

You probably could figure out who's smart and who's not, but then, you would certainly add your own bias to the selection process. What if all of those selected had fair skin, blond hair and blue eyes?

And as far as habitat goes, lets just say that that all the clones are raised in a habitat designed to promote them into reaching their potential. I would say that this would be difficult but feasible task given the gradual and controlled nature of the cloned births.

If this is supposed to replace humanity's natural reproduction process, you would have to devote an incredible amount of resources to accomplish that.

Okay so your arguing this from an emotional/moral perspective rather than a logical one (at least in the context of human progress and development), thats understandable I suppose. Does the means justify the end in your opinion however?

Emotional/moral and logical are not mutually exclusive. It is immoral to forcibly sterilize billions of people to "purify" the genetic pool. It is also, as DW pointed out, incredibly stupid.

Well, I don't know quite enough about genetics and heredity to debate these assertions but what exactly are the repercussions of limiting genetic diversity? Would humans be unable to adapt as well against certain changes in their environment? If so, what exactly would cause these changes and more importantly, would they apply to modern society?

The more limited genetic diversity is, the more destructive mutations pile up over generations. It's the same reason the child of siblings has a higher chance of birth defects.

Ah, but wouldn't perhaps knowing that everyone around you is quite possibly just as smart as you diminish your ego in some way?

Or it could make you more territorial and concerned with your own accomplishments. I don't even know that that's bad, though.

[BringerOfLight]

You probably could figure out who's smart and who's not, but then, you would certainly add your own bias to the selection process. What if all of those selected had fair skin, blond hair and blue eyes?

Please explain how supposed bias would reflect on the intent of creating a population of said "ubermen".

If this is supposed to replace humanity's natural reproduction process, you would have to devote an incredible amount of resources to accomplish that.

Okay, but you agree that it is feasible and perhaps, less difficult then originally thought under the stipulation that the population is introduced gradually.

Emotional/moral and logical are not mutually exclusive. It is immoral to forcibly sterilize billions of people to "purify" the genetic pool. It is also, as DW pointed out, incredibly stupid.

And yet, something that is immoral can also be illogical but it doesn't HAVE to be illogical. the original argument was based purely on the emotional/moral aspects of said extermination and in fact made no mention of the logical repercussions.

The more limited genetic diversity is, the more destructive mutations pile up over generations. It's the same reason the child of siblings has a higher chance of birth defects.

And said repercussions would only exist when clones reproduce, not in the process of cloning itself. Are their any other repercussions?

[Darth Wong]

The more limited genetic diversity is, the more destructive mutations pile up over generations. It's the same reason the child of siblings has a higher chance of birth defects.

And said repercussions would only exist when clones reproduce, not in the process of cloning itself. Are their any other repercussions?

Yes. Diseases will spread faster and pandemics will be more destructive because of the decreased variation. In nature, monocultures are inevitably destroyed because the lack of variation means that once a threat organism manages to adapt to the target, the target is rapidly overwhelmed.

Why do you think it's easier to hack a whole lab full of identically configured computers than one with differently configured computers? Once you figure out how to hack one of them, in the first scenario you've nailed 'em all. In the second scenario a lot of them might be unaffected by what you did.

By the way, nature is full of asexual organisms which reproduce in a manner that is arguably similar to cloning. They are hardly immune from the deleterious effects of a monocultural population.

[Morilore]

Please explain how supposed bias would reflect on the intent of creating a population of said "ubermen".

It makes it dangerous to implement. Racism in this case would be a particularly pungent form of stupidity in that it reduces the gene pool even further.

Okay, but you agree that it is feasible and perhaps, less difficult then originally thought under the stipulation that the population is introduced gradually.

Actually, I implied exactly the opposite. To raise all children in controlled environments would be incredibly taxing. Gradually molding the population might decrease costs, but only if you intend to do this for only one generation. See below.

And yet, something that is immoral can also be illogical but it doesn't HAVE to be illogical. the original argument was based purely on the emotional/moral aspects of said extermination and in fact made no mention of the logical repercussions.

So? That doesn't make it invalid. And depending on what moral system is used, yes, sometimes what is immoral MUST be illogical. Remember that logic is a way of framing arguments. Moral aversions to mass sterilization are based on herd instincts with positive adaptive significance. Basically, if it helps the human race survive, it's smart; if it doesn't, it's not. Again, see below.

And said repercussions would only exist when clones reproduce, not in the process of cloning itself. Are their any other repercussions?

Do you intend to replace only one generation of humans with clones, or completely rework the human reproductive process? If the former, the argument about eugenics and inbreeding is a valid long-term concern, and moral aversions to such a process are worth listening to. If the latter, you still have the problem DW pointed out, you just have delayed inbreeding until an economic crash or a meteor strike.

[BringerOfLight]

Yes. Diseases will spread faster and pandemics will be more destructive because of the decreased variation. In nature, monocultures are inevitably destroyed because the lack of variation means that once a threat organism manages to adapt to the target, the target is rapidly overwhelmed.

Why do you think it's easier to hack a whole lab full of identically configured computers than one with differently configured computers? Once you figure out how to hack one of them, in the first scenario you've nailed 'em all. In the second scenario a lot of them might be unaffected by what you did.

By the way, nature is full of asexual organisms which reproduce in a manner that is arguably similar to cloning. They are hardly immune from the deleterious effects of a monocultural population.

So what exactly causes resistance to diseases in the second scenario? Is it just because disease cannot cope with the physiological differences within hosts that is produced through genetic variation or because genetic variation increases the chances of creating individuals with innate resistance (or immunity) towards certain disease?

[Morilore]

So what exactly causes resistance to diseases in the second scenario? Is it just because disease cannot cope with the physiological differences within hosts that is produced through genetic variation or because genetic variation increases the chances of creating individuals with innate resistance (or immunity) towards certain disease?

Yes. Those two options say the same thing.