Ana Fonseca

Studant, School

This conversation is closed.

Human Cloning

Today in my english class, we talked about Human Cloning. It has its pros and cons like everything we know. Its a way to cure diseases, but I don't see another advantage. The cons are more than the pros.
People usually put in first place the religious issues that cloning brings, but I think that are other issues that cloning brings and are more important than the religious. For example, there will be less biodiversity, its too expensive,..
But the worst for me is a thing my teacher brought up to discussion as being a pro of human cloning. She said a pro was we could choose the traits of our sons and daughters. I think its really wrong, no one should choose their future baby characteristics. And what if the baby isn't what you "ordered" then what people would do ? Would they say " sorry I didn't ask for this one, have it back".
So what do you smart people that understand more about think?

  • thumb
    Dec 3 2013: I think what makes humans so wonderful and special is the diversity. All humans are unique per their DNA,eyes...
    It would be regrettable to spoil this gift of the nature.
    • thumb
      Dec 5 2013: A gift of nature ... but what about when nature does not give us a gift ? should in this case human clonning acceptable?
      I really like the subject and the truth is that I´m in favour of human clonning to a certain extent. There are limits we have to respect but the truth is that nobody knows where the limit is .
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2013: That's the problem.. We don't know where are the limits..
        I hold with the animal cloning to a certain extent but I find it hard to envisage the impact that human cloning could have in the future.
        • thumb
          Dec 20 2013: Agreed. More bad will come from it than the possible good.
      • Dec 8 2013: i think you re inspired : look at my post 5 mn ago
        Antroplogy , Ontology , Human Rights Declaration and Theology condemn all these projects, practices and all people who encourage them , finance them, legalize them

        A good video and comments in final last 20 mn of the film splice ( which is a sum up of embryonics manipulations since 30 years in laboratories : we know two in France that practice such experiences and observations of hybrids human - animals creatures )

        Institut Nazareth follow since 15 years the actuality about laws and declarations , and religious /moral aspects about human cloning : site : (rubrique Institut Nazareth )
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2013: Ana: Not speaking about religion; only about science, I haven't a clear opinion about it. I sincerely agree with stem cells' researching, for example; but about cloning, I've not even clear ideas about if it's good or bad. If we're able to find a good reason for human cloning, I'll not have problem to accept it. I'm pro about the most advanced and intense scientific investigation possible. Let's see and think about what could be right or wrong along cloning's way.
    I also wish to say I understand you; I learn in my language (spanish) and sometimes is very difficult for me to explain in Englisn (a language I intensely love), but as you say, I'm trying. Sometimes it's possible to feel a little bit ashamed, and other times one is misunderstood, but surely, the task is worth. :)
    • Dec 8 2013: @ sean brother can you separate religion ( consciousness) and science ? I think that position doesnt be acceptable for human and humanity rights
      Science as all we possess must be in finality of Common Good . That is the fondement (in french )of all authority , and scientists must be submitted to government authority ( that are not disqualified in religious , ontologics and anthropologics or socials effects and arguments ) Mainly they must obey to Human Rights Déclarations
      religiously I think it'is mainly and absolutly strongly comdemned in Bible ( whose translation with monosylabics - souce CESHE- tells in Daniel chapter 9 , that thess transgression is the worst (after adam'S ones , and then Jesus 's deapth) these third transgression is called in clear translation , Shiqoutsim Meshomem , ie Abomination of Desolation ( Jesus and Apocalypse mremained and talked about it in same terms ) In Monosylabic translation of Dn9 we find "Men will congelate embryos ", and further "they will kill thes human being in order to duplicate them "
      It is showing that that act and legalisation of it will be the Abomination of Desolation beginning : as intrusing in Holu y of Holy Divine Act of His Pure Human Création : at the moment and place when Man create the clone , iGod is substantially present to create the soul in him to inlife it ( (animation of the body) : presence like physical union between the mother and the baby at birth , ie without any cloth ( voile, in french) . It is a profanation act in Holy of Holy ( Saint des Saints in french)
      But all human and social and juridicals consequences of cloning for humanity and the world are gigantest too. That is a hudge War against Human Creation , Human , and Human Generation
      • thumb
        Dec 9 2013: Bruno: Your post seems to be very interesant. A good statement, of course. Answering to you, I'd only want to add that for me, it's possible to separate science and religion. I do not see why not. And I also think it's perfectly possible science and religion go on together.
  • Dec 12 2013: i beleive that cloning would be very beneficial in the human race. No I don't think people should choose the characteristics of thier children, but it is their choice. Cloning could possibly come in handy in the long run also.
  • Nov 24 2013: At the moment cloning technology can only give you a clone that is the same age as the donor when it is born i.e. clone an 80 yo man and you will get an 80 yo baby.
    • Dec 8 2013: no ! absolutly faulse ...
      clone is not the same and will contract genetic cells of the ovocyst that will bring him to birth after his creation by cloning technic
      But it is true that the cells are more old than those of a baby : he will dye soon ...that is the reason why laws and cloners try to success in cloning very young human embryos ( prealably destroyed in that prospect although they get a soul ( immortal as say since Platon all humanity and common sens )
  • Nov 24 2013: In what I know, there are possibly 3 kinds of "cloning.":
    1. The first kind was derived from the cloning of a sheep called Dolly. This was done by taking an egg from the mother sheep and fertilized it by artificial stimulation without a sperm. However, the resulted cloned sheep was a female with 2 X chromosomes. Unfortunately , the cloned sheep was weaker with shorter life span than the mother. So what was the advantage of cloning if the cloned offsprings are no better than the originals
    2. Some of you mentioned stem cell reproduction of organs. The newer development is to extract adult stem cells from the individual and rejuvenate them into embryotic stem cells, and implant them into the body and regenerate a new organ. This is really a very beneficial method to replace a diseased or injured organ as long as it is not the brain. Because, the reproduced organ acts as a newly formed organ. But for a person's brain, there are lot of memories and logical reasoning and concept of morality in his life that have been stored there. If you take them completely out of there, then you are actually replacing an old person with a completely new person, then you lost the beneficial purpose for it.
    3. The 3rd definition is really the equivalent of Genetically Modified "seed" of a human. For this kind, I would just use your query of " sorry I didn't ask for this one, have it back". Realistically, you simply can't ask to give "it" back when you find out that it is a horrible mistake from the result in a trial-and-error experiment, unlike the experiment with a grain seed by Monsanto Chemical Co. In addition, the government probably would never approve of such experimentation.
    • Dec 8 2013: ok but the french governement legalize cloning from embryos ( human indeed ) that's possible in practice since july 2013
      american are succeeding in cloning till 150 cells that mean possibility to developp them further as we do in FIV procreation ( look my posts in french 10 mn ago )
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2013: Olá Ana,
    Bem-vindo aos conversas TED, ... de Oliveira de Hospital.
    Uma das primeiras regras da medicina é "não prejudicar". As implicações da clonagem não são entendidos, porque o corpo como um sistema de energia-e-informação ainda não é entendido.
    Por esta razão, gostaria de dizer "não" à clonagem.
  • Nov 22 2013: I think if we allow human cloning we will run into the situation of Brave New World. Here is a brief summary of how this fiction book describe what human cloning could become.
    The novel opens in the Central London Hatching and Conditioning Centre, where the Director of the Hatchery and one of his assistants, Henry Foster, are giving a tour to a group of boys. The boys learn about the Bokanovsky and Podsnap Processes that allow the Hatchery to produce thousands of nearly identical human embryos. During the gestation period the embryos travel in bottles along a conveyor belt through a factorylike building, and are conditioned to belong to one of five castes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Epsilon. The Alpha embryos are destined to become the leaders and thinkers of the World State. Each of the succeeding castes is conditioned to be slightly less physically and intellectually impressive. The Epsilons, stunted and stupefied by oxygen deprivation and chemical treatments, are destined to perform menial labor.
    • Dec 8 2013: not false
      practically that s called eugenic world . some named themselves transhumnists leaders of transhumanism ideology
      practically as I know in France : on the 11th of february 1913 ( french and world celebrate a that date ND de Lourdes , whre the Holy lady said I'am Imaculated Conception !!!) a law decret legally to developp human embryo's ( conception no defined : could be cloning or by ovocyt fecondation ) and one chromosome X inhibited ... That s to say in 50% of case the baby won't have sexuals organs ( a -sexual human), and in 100% no sexual impulse ( they could be in future be enroled for inhuman missions because without affect ..and lightnessed consciousness)
      Look also at others of my post in last hour
  • thumb

    . .

    • +1
    Nov 22 2013: Dear Ana, I don't know... I can only give you something on a lighter note:)for your English class…. Here is a trailer from a movie I enjoyed a lot on this subject and I hope you can watch the movie with your classmates together. ENJOY!!
  • Nov 21 2013: Currently, our ability to "choose traits" is extremely minor and limited. However, let us pretend that we have solved that technical problem. Whether or not it is "wrong" to choose a child's traits on a molecular level can actually be debated. We currently choose our children's traits via ordinary reproduction, albeit indirectly. We like to tell ourselves silly little lies about what we find sufficiently attractive to desire sex and reproduction. They are all nothing but silly little lies. There is a great deal of biology and trait selection behind it. Molecular methods only make that explicit.
    That being said, the advantage of the natural system is the very crudeness that those who would adopt artificial selection hate. Fully artificial trait selection only works in two circumstances: 1) When you have a perfect understanding of all traits, variants, and interactions; and 2) when your selected organism is nothing more than a showpiece or livestock raised for a single purpose.

    Thus, if we had perfect knowledge of the universe, we could make perfect selections. Alternatively, if we were just creating humans to slaughter as meat, poor choices wouldn't matter.
  • thumb
    Dec 20 2013: Honestly, I find nothing cool about human cloning. I thought animal cloning was bad enough, but now humans. I agree with what you said about choosing the traits of our sons and daughters. There are so may things that could go wrong with that. Plus, to me, it's just flat out wierd. I've also had this discussion in my Biology Advanced Studies class a few months back. I don't agree with Human Cloning.
  • Dec 19 2013: I don't see cloning as a way to cure diseases... unless we only clone people who don't have diseases. But everyone will get a disease or inherently may already have one, it's in the dna. It also comes with age, environment, etc

    Now DNA modification, or selections based on DNA traits - is a different thing altogether than cloning.

    Since you talk about a teacher, I assume your a student, an interesting film on the subject of DNA selection, and by such selection what it might bring us in the future... is the film called.... Gattaca.

    It covers many of the issues you raise here, and many more. I hope it help you with your class, studies and questions to raise with your teacher.
  • Dec 13 2013: The purpose of the cloning is not to create all the humans by cloning, it is an technology to be mastered. This technology will & will be used in other implementation. Just go back to the time when even the invention of electricity, Train & Plane were criticised for there ill effect on human being. Now without them we can not imagine were the world would have been. Similarly One thing leads to other , & so will this technology
  • Dec 8 2013: le clonage humain : 1)il est techniquement possible : Par J.Gallagher BBC News (mai 2013 ) révèle : « Un embryon au stade blastocyste » Le clonage humain a bien été utilisé pour produire des embryons précoces .. Dr David King, de Human Genetics Alert, alerte: "Les scientifiques ont finalement accouché: une méthode pour créer de façon fiable des embryons humains clonés. ( …) L'électricité a été utilisée pour encourager l'œuf à se développer en embryon.. L'œuf cloné n’avait jamais pu dépasser le stade de la cellule 6-12. Voici qu’une équipe de l'Oregon Health and Science University a pu mettre faire passer l'embryon au stade blastocyste - environ 150 cellules - suffisantes pour fournir une source de cellules souches embryonnaires donc aptes à obtenir des Bébés clonés? (…) implanté comme par FIV… // 2) il est dans la loi française, contrairement aux idées reçues, légal d'en developper tous ses stades de la conception à l'embryon intra- uterin en passant par sa constitution. Et jusqu'a sa naissance en ce qui concerne les clones d'embryons congelés depuis juilet 2013 ( voir alerte 22 rubrique institut nazareth dans le site // 3) Mais ce que ce qui est techniquement possible et autorisé par la loi d'un pays est il légitime humainement, moral ? Ce interroge l'ontologie de l'homme :le clone est créé sans fécondation : il n'aura ni père ni mère biologique : il sera "fabriqué " et issu non d'une "union biologique" de gametes masculines et feminines , mais par provocation techniquede ses divisions cellulaires ( chimique et excitations electriques). L'etre humain en sera marque toute sa vie // 4) l'homme reçoit une ame spirituelle immortelle, créée par Dieu qui le distingue de l'animal . Le clonage humain est, dit Daniel (ch9 ) profanation du sanctuaire réservé a Dieu seul , Abomination de la Désolation ( qui provoquera des "justices imanentes" graves) 5) il est une ouverture a l'eugénisme condamné à Nuremberg (nazi,Pr Mengele testa clonage et hybrides)
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2013: I don't see anything wrong with "choosing" your children's characteristics. People do it already when they choose their sex mates, being in part attracted to features they'd love to see ending up in their offspring. Unconsciously, but consciously as well.
    This is the priviledge of the good looking or high-ranking individuals, though. Some people, well, just have to take what comes, as the chance for their genes surviving them is poor from the start.
    It's easy when you look dashing to prefer Nature's way of gene selection.

    Oh and by the way, people are NEVER disapointed with whatever baby they end up holding in their hands for the first time.
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2013: Hi Gerald, I wouldn't see a problem with that if everybody would have the same possibilities.
      However, assuming that selecting specific features one day becomes available, it most likely will cost money, hence be limited to only a certain percentage of the population which then could lead to the formation of a "master race".
      Frankly, that doesn't sound very appealing to me.
      • Nov 23 2013: That problem could be partially solved by subsidies which make it more affordable. You'd still have a split, but instead of being rich/poor, it'd be Luddites/everyone else, which is a fair sight better.

        We're going to end up with that sort of situation due to cybernetics anyhow, and unlike genetic engineering, they don't require nearly as much foresight (easier to install on an adult).
        This is a problem that needs to be solved, not ignored, because it'll happen eventually.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2013: I suppose you are right. Once a technology becomes easily available somebody will eventually use it regardless of laws and ethics.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2013: Of all things, technology is the most democratic in the end. Check out the drop in genome sequencing cost!
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2013: Yes, I agree, however, even today there are still lots of people that starve and we are not able to feed them, so selecting specific "features" for their offspring might not be in reach even if human genetic modification becomes very cheap.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2013: "there are still lots of people that starve and we are not able to feed them"

        Let's hope that continues to drop as well.
  • Nov 21 2013: For a start, you need to separate cloning from genetic engineering. Two very different things.

    For cloning, I'm all for it, even if its only good for medical research. Most of the more harmful implications like doubles running about the place aren't a realistic concern, as if you clone a human, the replicate is only identical in DNA; mentally, the poor fellow would be a blank slate, no better than a human shaped animal that may not even know how to walk, never mind doing more complex actions like talking.
    Still, there is medical potential here. Need a new organ, clone up a new one. You probably don't even need a full host, avoiding much of the ethical limitations.

    As for genetic engineering of unborn children, it seems a grand idea. No more children born with genetic defects which screw them over for life for a start. I'm not a parent myself, but if I was, I'd want the best for my hypothetical kids. Genetic engineering could earn them a better life--smarter, stronger, healthier, more attractive. Just because I had to live with my genetic limitations doesn't mean they should have to.
    The biggest problem here is the widening of the gap between rich and poor, which I view as more of a problem to be addressed as opposed to something worth grounding the process to a halt for.
    • Nov 21 2013: Until such time as we get magic witchcraft POOF--instant adult, the "replicate" would be a baby, a fully-formed human baby. He or she would only be a "blank slate" because ALL babies are "blank slates". Thus, as a fully-formed human being, it would be murder to "harvest" this baby for organs. Cloning does NOT and has NEVER produced "mindless biological adults". It has always formed babies of that species in question, mentally the same as natural newborns or hatchlings, morally the same as well.
      • Nov 21 2013: At the moment, it creates babies with the genetic makeup of an adult. Some future technology may make it possible for the clone to be an adult to begin with (it would obviously necessitate some artificial womb as well). It may be a requirement for organ harvesting--preferably without the poor clone ever being conscious.

        Still, whether we're talking today's genetically adult baby clones (which I wouldn't recommend we make, their health would likely suffer for it), or potential future instant adults, the blank slate brain renders the process completely and utterly useless for making a doppelganger.
        Frightening for the ethical implications for the clone perhaps, but not exactly horror movie material.
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2013: Re: "She said a pro was we could choose the traits of our sons and daughters."

    In my experience, things rarely come out the way we want or intend.
  • Nov 21 2013: Someone should remember the correct name of a movie a few years ago about genetic engineering
    Galactica or something like that Good movie.
    Then Blade Runner Alien, etc. There was even a presequel to Alien that was intended to have a Ted Talk

    The greatest desire for human cloning Ego or Love e.g. a dead loved person should live
  • Nov 21 2013: Reasons for cloning
    Ego Keep M E alive

    Love Keep someone else you love alive

    Bioengineering Galactica A good movie I believe
    • thumb
      Nov 21 2013: Yes, did you see the movie "Oblivion" acted by Tom Cruise? It makes some sense of human cloning but the premise is love can't be removed or eliminated from one's heart and memory.
      • Nov 22 2013: Okay this is probably only the subject of movies now. I didn't see it but thanks as I will in the future.

        Oh my gosh, I forgot The Boys from Brazil as to the idea of cloning a really bad man.
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2013: 'And what if the baby isn't what you "ordered" then what people would do? Would they say "sorry I didn't ask for this one, have it back". '

    They would probably say that before they read through all the fine print of the contract ... :o)
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2013: I have to say I am not with the idea of "human cloning". It will destroy humanity.
    • thumb
      Nov 21 2013: But wouldn't it be great to send your clone to work to earn your income? ;o)
      • thumb
        Nov 21 2013: Long time no arguing, Lejan~!:)))
        You have reminded me of asking you a good quesiton: Will you sell your clone out to make money?"

        And I have thought of a story: Some people reach an agreement with you on cloning you for some specific reason and promise to pay you the money as much as you want. And they keep it under their hat, then the first replica of Lejan is successfully brought out to the world. Unfortunately the Lejan envies you after he knows you're the original copy. For dignity and greed, he decides to find you and kill you to be the real one because no one will know how to distinguish who's the original one, neither can't its(or his?) makers. And after he has succeeded, he launches your dead body into somewhere in the universe and the Lejan tells his makers the replica(you) felt humiliated and committed suicide and the makers have to give in because they don't want people to know their secret..........

        Hahahaha... what do you think of my story?:))

        I'd like to say the feeling of earning money is so good and I 'd be very glad to sell your copies if it's profitable and you don't mind but not mine. :) There're many other ways for me to earn money with keeping my privacy.:)

        I'm pulling you leg. Hahahahh..... Don't take it seriously~~~!
        • thumb

          Lejan .

          • +1
          Nov 21 2013: As I assume you to be a clever business man, you would seek to sell successful products, which gets me out of any smart choices and solid quality considerations.

          One Lejan is definitely enough to bare for each habitable planet, which includes this one, and thereby answers your question and puts your story into the fiction category.

          And did you really pull my leg? Hmmm .. didn't even notice ... :o)
      • thumb
        Nov 21 2013: hehe.... you're right, I didn't even find your leg here. It's definitely others' leg.
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2013: Human cloning certainly is a complicated issue, but most likely it will eventually happen as soon as the technology permits, whether it's legal or not.
    1) Why less biodiversity ? You are talking about human cloning right ? That shouldn't influence biodiversity.
    2) Let's assume we could perfectly clone a human. The question is, would the clone perceive himself as identical to the original or as a different individual ? If he perceives himself as different, then what's the point in cloning in the first place ?
    3) Since cloning costs obviously money, this technology would only be available to people who can pay for it. If we combine that with the possibility of selecting specific traits, then I see a huge ethical problem. It could easily lead to the artificial creation of a master race. Not something I'd like to see.

    So, overall, I would be against human cloning under any circumstances.
    • thumb

      Lejan .

      • +1
      Nov 21 2013: Biodiversity also applys to the gene pool of a single species.

      Identical twins are natural clones and they do perceive them as different from one another.
      • thumb
        Nov 21 2013: "Identical twins are natural clones and they do perceive them as different from one another."
        Not really, they are almost identical but there are some differences (e.g phenotypes). Beside, other differences appear because of early mutations in the DNA that is different from one twin to the other.
        • thumb
          Nov 21 2013: To speak of natural clones for identical twins is not only common use but also valid by definition, in which they are called monozygotic twins. And as any DNA mutates over time, even artificial clones would begin to vary from its genetic origin pretty soon.

          Would we perceive ourself still as identical to ourselves on Tuesday morning when mutation stroked our DNA at Monday night? I think, I would, at least at close range and before cancer therapy...
        • Nov 22 2013: A phenotype is not a difference. A phenotype is the expression of a genotype. If one only speaks of phenotypes, then identical genetic alleles produce identical phenotypes. However, an organism is not just a sum of phenotypes. Phenotypes, themselves, are subject to environmental modification. If there is a twin-discordant DNA mutation, that is not a phenotypic difference, it would be genotypic. However, the effect of twin-discordant DNA mutation has turned out to be pretty much negligible. What is far more important is twin-discordant epigenetic modification.
      • thumb
        Nov 21 2013: Sorry I didn't invent the rules ;-) As I said, monozygotic twins are ALMOST identical (even disregarding the mutations)
        • thumb
          Nov 21 2013: Then you may change the entry in Wikipedia regarding those rules, as also there identical twins are named as natural clones.

          I am fine with that, yet you may not wish the world to die in ignorance against your better knowledge... :o)
      • thumb
        Nov 21 2013: Lejan, this is from the Wikipedia entry:
        "Monozygotic twins are genetically NEARLY identical and they are always the same sex unless there has been a mutation during development."
        What does "nearly identical" mean to you ?
        • thumb
          Nov 21 2013: What does it mean to you in the context of:

          'Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing or previously existing human. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.'

      • thumb
        Nov 21 2013: Lejan, again, I'm not creating a new hypothesis but tell you what I read.
        Here another link that probably helps.
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2013: And which definition makes a 'valid' clone to you? The 100% rule? And how long does this 'status' then survive under natural mutation? 5 minutes? 2 Hours? 3 years?

          And do you think, that only from that very moment of first natural mutation a clone begins to feel 'different' from its DNA source, and was indifferent about its individuality before?

          I don't think so, as the development of our sense of individuality begins years after the likelihood for natural mutation, thus I am not in doubt that an artificial clone would form its individuality just like natural clones and just like all none-clones.

          I also don't think, that this our sense of individuality is determined within the micro-cosmos of our DNA, as it forms in our brain, which has its very own genesis.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2013: No, actually I do think that a clone, even if we could produce one 100 % to type still would develop his own mind. The mind relies on inputs from the environment and the moment these inputs are different for 2 people (even if genetically identical) the mind will produce different stories.
        Probably even with identical sensory stimuli the mind would produce different outputs for template and clone (just my assumption). It appears to me that much that happens in our minds is random.
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2013: So you imagine cloning to 'grow' grownups by skipping childhood? Interesting concept, yet science fiction still and problematic as well. Usual birth would be the 'concept' of choice to grow clones and their mind development would be as 'normal' as we know it from then on.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2013: Lejan, are you smoking something you shouldn't ? Where did I say that I imagine growing "grownups" ? Wake up !!!!!
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2013: Easy Harald, easy, I was just trying to make sense to changing statements, coming from:

          'Let's assume we could perfectly clone a human. The question is, would the clone perceive himself as identical to the original or as a different individual?'

          and changing to:

          '... actually I do think that a clone, even if we could produce one 100% to type still would develop his own mind.'

          Your standpoint on this matter remains unclear, as you are questioning what you think yourself. So what's the point you are trying to make here?

          As the development of mind is the basis for the development of the sense of individuality, there is no question that clones would perceive themselves as different individuals from their DNA sources, wouldn't they?
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2013: Lejan:
        definition of biodiversity according to Webster's dictionary:

        "biological diversity in an environment as indicated by numbers of different species of plants and animals "

        But then, you probably also disagree with Webster's dictionary.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2013: I certainly love additional definitions for words which already define themselves.

          What other definition do you find for: Lebensvielfalt (Diversity of life)?

          Any Duden or Wikipedia results? :o)

          And how do we interpret self defining words in different context? Do we define each context anew, or could we also just use the self-definition of the word itself to get the point?

          If you take a look at Webster's definition of biodiversity, what did the original meaning of the word itself lose? Life! As, like you, it substitutes the term 'bio' by 'species', which isn't wrong yet definitely not the whole meaning of the word itself. The German term 'Artenvielfalt' (diversity of species) would be the best translation to Websters attempt, which is a sub-category to 'Lebnsvielfalt', which is the whole meaning of biodiversity (Diversity of life), which also includes the diversity within species, as a collective term.

          Don't restrict yourself by other peoples definition of terms, especially if terms are clear about themselves, just like this one.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2013: And you still haven't enlightened your contradiction.
    • Nov 21 2013: A perfect clone will be younger than the template. A perfect clone will take 40 weeks (roughly) to gestate. At that point, it will be a human infant. If you want an "adult", it will take another 18-20 years. There is no way for "force mature" any mammal--although you can induce premature deterioration that resembles old age. Cloning DOES NOT PRODUCE ADULT COPIES. How hard is it to understand this?

      By the time it becomes practical to create such things, other methods would have long-since outstripped any alleged benefit from cloning. Why go to the trouble of cloning and force-growing a whole person when you could use similar technology to clean up the cells gone bad in your own body, make yourself stronger, faster, more enduring, healthier, re-tune your organs from the inside in a non-invasive fashion, etc?

      Likewise, if one can force-grow "adult clones", why waste it on making copies of humans? Why not engineer "lower" animals to handle unwanted functions (implant little remote control bombs in their heads, just in case)?
    • thumb
      Nov 21 2013: Of course it would be less biodiversity, even my biology teacher said that. When the dna replication happens, in a natural way ,sometimes there are mutations along the process, and she said that those mutations give more biodiversity to animals, and humans. For example when a bacteria reproduces it divides itself in 2 new bacterias that look just like the first one. But when humans our other animal reproduce, there are a mix of dna and the baby its different from his parents.
      I think that happens with cloning, the new person will be theoretically , like the one that "gave " the nucleus .
      I don't know if you got my point of view. Also I learned this stuff in portuguese and I don't know if all the terms are correct but I did my best.
      • thumb
        Nov 21 2013: Ana, when I talk about bio diversity I talk about all life forms. What you mean is human genetic diversity and here you are right. Cloning people certainly would reduce the genetic diversity in humans.
        Read Bryan's post above. He made a good point saying that obviously can't create adult human clones.

        Além disso você pode escrever tb em português ;-)
        • thumb

          Lejan .

          • +1
          Nov 23 2013: Ana was right from the beginning, Harald, as the term 'bio' means 'life' and not 'life forms' how you seem to use it when you talk about it, which consequently makes 'human genetic diversity' necessary only for you, to bridge it.
      • Dec 8 2013: non le clone humain n'est pas le jumeau de celui qu'il " duplique" : il aura les caractéristiques de mla mère porteuse qui le portera et le fera naitre ...
        C'est ainsi qu'une cellule totipotente developpee par clonage dans un ovule animal donnera une chimère ou un être hybride (... ce qui est en soi une abomination !!)
        le mythe du clone semblable est une aberration de aldous Huxley le prophète du meillleur des mondes constitué d'etres humains créés a la carte
        les experimentations avant d'arriver à un resultat de clone humain sont fait de ce genre de manipulations inhumaines et deshumanisantes : le film Splice en est une expression ... si vous comprenez le français je vous invite a écouter l'audio de jenvier dernier
        et la video apres le vote des lois de l'été dernier en France et commentant splice