Turn on thread page Beta

Generic engineering and cloning watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Since cloning a human being is now plausible does this make it right?
    Are there more benefits than risks?

    Would you ever want to be cloned?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It depends what type of cloneing you are talking about. I have no problem with cell cloning and types of cloneing that are currently alowed however I don't like the Idea of cloneing a whole human.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    its called genetic cloning not generic cloning.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I somehow managed to vote for all of them. What I meant was 'No - Cloning is wrong". It's just icky.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Science can be used for both good and bad. Look at the nuclear industry, useful source of power but also the source of a conflict that caused millions to be spent on weapons.

    It is all about how it is controlled. Clearly gentic engineering can have some great benifits for our society like removing heritery dieases or being able to grow replacement organs that the body would not reject. However IMO it could also have alot of bad uses like eugenics and designer babies. It could also become something that only the rich could afford as well. Clearly this uses would be an abuse of the science. What we need to examine the facts, regulate the research groups who are working on it, prevent companies like monsanto from abusing the knowledge they acquire and ensure it works for the benifits of the whole of society rather than a select few.

    Both gentic engineering and cloning have further specific issues attached to them but my beliefs expressed above suggest the line that we should take when we tackle these issues.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cellardore)
    Since cloning a human being is now plausible does this make it right?
    Are there more benefits than risks?

    Would you ever want to be cloned?
    Cloning, if it can be described as engineering at all, is very specialised and non-generic.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cellardore)
    Since cloning a human being is now plausible does this make it right?
    Are there more benefits than risks?

    Would you ever want to be cloned?

    LMAO! Generic engineering - sorry, but you have put a great big smile on my face after getting very wet and very pissed off walking home from work

    Thanks
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Clonong, if it can be described as engineering at all, is very specialised and non-generic.
    but it produces lots of generic people, all looking the same (hopes to avoid nature vs nuture arguement tho)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Clonong, if it can be described as engineering at all, is very specialised and non-generic.
    Cloning is genetic engineering!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard about the cloaning that they use to create new organs and yes they do use feutuses but not normal ones - these feutuses are created by sucking the genetic information out of an egg cell and inserting in the genetic information from something else (such as skin). Also they do not have any ability to grow into humans and they are destroyed when they are still smaller than a pin head. However religious leaders still want it banned - this is rediculusly stupid in my opinion and they are just standing in the way of progress.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fluffy)
    Cloning is genetic engineering!
    ...but not generic engineering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    but it produces lots of generic people, all looking the same (hopes to avoid nature vs nuture arguement tho)
    Multiculturalism pushes for the same thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiLiberal)
    Multiculturalism pushes for the same thing.
    which is neither necessarily bad or true
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cellardore)
    Since cloning a human being is now plausible does this make it right?
    Are there more benefits than risks?

    Would you ever want to be cloned?
    Read "Spares" by Michael Marshall Smith.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cellardore)
    Since cloning a human being is now plausible does this make it right?
    Are there more benefits than risks?

    Would you ever want to be cloned?
    People today are fertil enough to get more than 20 kids. Yet, noone does. Why is it that the mainstream public seems to beleive that if you legalise cloning you will suddenly get a lot of people creating 50 duplicates of themselves? Please, we already have clones in todays society. Identical twins! They are in fact eaven more identical than articficial cloning because they also share mitocondrial DNA. Is this a major problem? That some people have identical DNA ? Please, I quite honestly do not see why, if I turned out to be sterile, it would be so horrific if I got a kid with 100% rather than 50% of my genes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    but it produces lots of generic people, all looking the same (hopes to avoid nature vs nuture arguement tho)
    No it doesnt. Do you seriously beleive a person would make 50 coppies of himself merely because he could? People today get less than 2 kids on average. If you were able to get kids the old fashioned way, would you run to some clinic trying to make sure your kid was a perfect "minime" ? I see no problem why steril people should not be allowed to clone themselves (provided technology advances enough for it to be done in a manner with risks down at the same level as a normal conception) . To prohibit a lot of steril people from getting offspring merely because you are afraid some wacko may wanna try to get a clone-kid is absurd. Manny wackos get kids the usual way, yet we do not prohibit people from reproducing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    No it doesnt. Do you seriously beleive a person would make 50 coppies of himself merely because he could? People today get less than 2 kids on average. If you were able to get kids the old fashioned way, would you run to some clinic trying to make sure your kid was a perfect "minime" ? I see no problem why steril people should not be allowed to clone themselves (provided technology advances enough for it to be done in a manner with risks down at the same level as a normal conception) . To prohibit a lot of steril people from getting offspring merely because you are afraid some wacko may wanna try to get a clone-kid is absurd. Manny wackos get kids the usual way, yet we do not prohibit people from reproducing.
    notice generic inline with the joke naming of the thread
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    ...but not generic engineering.
    No, but everyone knows that was a mis spell!! :rolleyes:

    Plus you said:

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Cloning, if it can be described as engineering at all...
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fluffy)
    No, but everyone knows that was a mis spell!! :rolleyes:

    Plus you said:
    As a potential quack, you ought to be especially concerned about reading exactly what is written, or you might chop off the wrong bits or over-or underdose drastically.
    Actually, i said rather more...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.