TED Conversations

Vicky Smith

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is cloning animals and humans acceptable? Own beliefs? Religious views?

many scientists around the world are cloning animals and although cloning humans is not currently acceptable, they are working on so soon will be. Is this morally right?
Are we playing with god's nature?

Topics: cloning future life morals nature religion science
0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    daniel venøy

    • +1
    Feb 1 2012: I think cloning is something we can benefit greatly from if we think about cloning meat and so on, but cloning living animals and humans is another question, if you take the religious approach i have to ask the question: if it goes againts gods nature to clone a living creature would it even be possible to do so?
    I think we need to understand why we are doing it before we do it.

    Having the technology to clone organs and meat will save allot of lives and personaly i dont know why it is necessary to clone a living human being, i might see the nessesety in cloning animals if they are about to go extinct, i think if we are going to clone a human there needs to be a good reason for doing so and there probably is.

    Personally i am not religous, so for me there are few moral boundries for me to object to cloning, but then again i know very little about the subject.

  • Adriana Paola Ocampo Andrade

    • 0
    Jan 24 2012: Human and animal cloning are not morally right. We have been seeing now the miracle about life and how the life maybe is designed by a wonderful creator. Let´s see the video about Alexander Tsiaras: conception to birth, it is amazing!!!
    In fact, cloning is not nature, is manipulation, and many animals have dead and sick.

    • Ben Zittere

      • +1
      Jan 31 2012: Building cities is not natureUsing computers is not natureUtilizing agriculture is not naturePoetry, music, painting and sculpture are not natureNature is eating raw what you can hunt or forrage and burrowing into a den. For the most part, a natural existence sucks. I like to go visit it every now and then, but by and large I prefer civilization. I enjoy a lot of benefits from living in an environment manipulated in an unnatural way. I don't have a problem with gengeneering, cloning, IVF, DNA sequencing or stem cell research. Knowledge about nature and the skill to manipulate natural systems have benefited humanity since we started walking upright.
  • thumb

    timber maniac 20+

    • +2
    Jan 24 2012: I am opposed to the growing and raising of a human by someone or some people who do not have intentions to allow this new human to live with all of the rights other humans have. Cloned or not, it appears to be slavery. It disturbs me to think of a cloned (or normal) human who is sustained and raised within a research lab and kept there indefinitely for the purpose of monitoring his/her growth progression. If said clone is created and given to a family, monitored from afar, and can integrate with humanity as all others should be allowed to do, I do not see an issue with bringing life into the world in this new way. For your last question: I see us as nature playing with nature. Perhaps I'm stretching the word too thin.

    • Comment deleted

  • David Grammer

    • 0
    Jan 24 2012: Acceptable to whom? Who's morals? Who's god? Who's nature? Every time we plow a field instead of harvesting what nature has randomly sown, we are playing with "god's nature". In almost every instance, if it can be done, it will be done. Unless or until something horrible happens and then there may be some adjustments. I cannot think of a single instance in which a field of study has been permanently abandoned because we were afraid we might not like the results. The amount of genetic alteration that has taken place since the discoveries of Mendel has made this more a question of degree than anything else. Cloning will happen to a greater or lesser degree, here or somewhere else, openly or behind closed doors. There will be abuses, there will be discoveries. It's what we do after that that really matters.
  • thumb

    Krisztián Pintér 200+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Jan 23 2012: i'm delighted to see that nobody actually raised any objections to human cloning. which is good, because there are no valid profound objections to it.

    what is cloning? a man is born with the same genome as another man. like twins with time difference. exactly how would that be generally objectionable?

    some practices of course could be problematic. but we need to judge those practices individually.

  • Adam Pawełczyk

    • 0
    Jan 19 2012: Shouldn't you rather be asking about the selective morality that we see everywhere??

    Let's stay on cloning for the time being.

    You're already eating cloned food. When a gardener takes a sample from a tree, plants it in the earth again, and a new tree sprouts... That's cloning. The new tree has the same genetic material as the one before. It's like if you cut your own finger off and watch another you sprout from the ground. But no body cares since "This new kind of apple is quite delicious, isn't it?"

    Fine, plants aren't "really" alive, are they?? They don't walk or talk... So, what's with animals?? (don't tell me that's stupid, just think about it) If someone cloned a bunch of mosquitoes, would anyone bat an eye?? They would look the same, be as annoying, and probably die as quickly for pestering someone.

    Too small?? Then what about rats??

    Then lets get straight to the point. Cows. Do you even see the cow you eat?? Can you distinguish one hamburger from another?? Since I don't think so, then cloned cows would be born just like normal ones, have the same genes, and, in the end, "As delicious as the first one".

    Well, since that isn't really the centre of the topic, lets head straight back to people. Because here's the real "selective" morality I mentioned before. I don't know when it started, but even now people have the habit of passing laws, regulations or what not to make their life better. Either that, or to make life of their opponents a little harder. But when they notice that it hinders them as well, then it starts with all the "Well, we didn't mean it like that, and even if the rule stands, this has to be made an exception". Sometimes it's like kids gloating...

    Show me a person who is morally right throughout their life and I'll go and ask them myself what they think about the topic. Until that happens, I think that people getting their head straight should be a priority. Only when they do that, we can start talking about more serious business.
    • thumb

      Obey No1kinobe 50+

      • 0
      Jan 23 2012: good points but suggest we can look at both

      • Adam Pawełczyk

        • 0
        Jan 23 2012: You mean both cloning and getting people see straight?

        I don't really think so. I guess I'm just that type of a person who, when sees the real problem, would gladly drop everything else and fix the thing that does the most damage. The image I constantly use is: Is it sensible to pour water into a sieve-like bucket while you're trying to patch the holes?

        And the thing I see as the biggest problem right now are people. Not really as a species or anything we do, but our mentality. We are greedy, power hungry little bastards who think they can have all the gains without any of the drawbacks.

        I know that it's kind of harsh, but I'd much rather overstate it than hide behind "well, it's not that bad really..." It clears the picture for me. So, even if not every single person is that bad, we, as a group, have the tendency to tilt towards that.

        I always believed that life is about finding perfect balance between gains you get and losses you have to deal with. And here we dig all over the planet for things we need. We even level the mountains to build them up in a different place, just because it's convenient to us.

        Why we think about it as normal?? Because we're not the ones paying the costs for that kind of changes.

        But a simple thing: world hunger. How hard it be to share your meal with another person?? The problem with it is that it's suddenly less food on your table. And people start grimacing at the inconvenience.

        We're not all that, no matter how much we want to think we are. The thing with getting people's head straight is to make them understand that if you want something, you have to pay the price for it. If we wanted to accomplish anything, as a whole planet, we could. It even would be easy. But right now nothing will happen, because countries/groups or what now are still thinking "Why do we have to pay the price??"

        That's why I don't understand why people complain that politicians are two-faced. You pay them to screw other countries in the first place.
  • thumb

    Matthieu Miossec 100+

    • +1
    TED TranslatorAssociate
    Jan 19 2012: Cloning already takes place. It's called twins. I can see some moral issues arising from artificial human cloning with regards to identity and motivation. I don't see cloning other animals as raising many ethical issues.

    Also, every innovation in biology and sometimes in physics is branded as playing with God. Let's discuss real ethical concern before we let irrational religious sensitivities weight in.

  • James Rigby

    • +1
    Jan 18 2012: You're question implies that the existence of a god is a fact - which is clearly is not. It's a belief. Nevertheless, it is a good questions when it comes to playing with nature. I see no ethical or moral issues when it comes to cloning. As with all scientific advances it is the uses to which it is put that can cause the ethical/moral issues. As for the scientific issues, these usually boil down to unforseen consequences.

    On the moral issue, there need to be safeguards to ensure that the clone is being created for the right reasons. It would be wrong, for example, to create a clone for the purposes of having a spare parts depot. Or to make a clone to be able to study a genetic disease better. The clone *MUST* (
    • thumb

      Obey No1kinobe 50+

      • 0
      Jan 23 2012: agree we can work this out without relying on the beliefs of the ignorant shaped by the ancients.

      we have already syrpassed the wildest dreams of the ancients. we know the univetse is older bigger more complex and wonderous than they ever imagined. we have split the atom and are unravelling dna. imagine a thousand years from now. we will seem like infants.
  • thumb

    Obey No1kinobe 50+

    • 0
    Jan 18 2012: Suggest cloning is related to designer humans etc.

    No issue growing replacement organs (not the entire person). Growing a conscious clone for organs start to have issues. Growing a clone body with no brain for replacement parts - no issue

    Modifying children/embryo to eliminate genetic health issues - okay. At some stage our life span will be 300 years +.

    Designer babies, sex selection, start to have issues. But expect this is inevitable.
    Replacing a dead child with a clone, start to have issues.

    Designer clone soldiers, or redesigned humans for specific tasks with or without consciousness starts to have issues. But expect designer soldiers is inevitable.

    I'm not religious, just think any conscious clone should have a reasonable reason to exist and have a good quality of life not be a slave or body part vessel. Also, we don't need more exact clones just for the sake of. Also psycological issues for original and clone. Need to be overall benefit for humanity and not sacrifice individual/clone.

    Suggest we don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily, even if we eat them. Suggest eating animals may eventually become unacceptable. Grey area where a few poor animals suffer as we learn, experiment - some benefit I guess. Suggest many food animals suffer more unnecessarily.

  • Xavier Belvemont

    • +1
    Jan 17 2012: 'Are we playing with god's nature?'
    Humans altered Banana's to what we have today, created corn, wiped out various disease, made eye glasses, created hair transplants, removed the appendix, have plastic surgery, made river water drinkable, dye our hair, formed nylon and selectively bred dogs, cats and cows from their giant and ferocious ancestors. Either you're not taking human civilization into account or you're drawing an arbitrary line.

    I see nothing immoral about cloning an animal. I would be somewhat surprised if anyone has a legitimate issue with it.

    • Vicky Smith

      • 0
      Jan 17 2012: The things you have listed above are infact benefical to the human race, thus by 'wiping out various diseases' we are saving and protecting the human race - which god has created.
      How would cloning an animal be extremely beneficial in saving the human race? or is it just scientists experimenting with life? It took more than 100 attempts to clone dolly the sheep if you have heard of this famous investigation. In cloning animals they have many side effects and life was extremley difficult for dolly who had many things not-functioning correctly in her body, she even had a kidney failiure - we are simply torturing her by giving her life...

      • Xavier Belvemont

        • 0
        Jan 17 2012: Well I really wouldn't consider dying our hair, nylon and different shaped bananas to be beneficial to the human race per-se; Not in the same way as eliminating the black plague, atleast.

        Cloning animals can be used in many ways, such as Cloning animals for medical research with a consistent control group, creating a transgenic mutation model in a short period of time with less chance of error, stem cell research, engineering animals to produce particular drugs and proteins, reviving endangered species, reproducing extinct animals, food etc etc

        So if your argument is that certain things should be allowed because they benefit the human race, then you've also argued that cloning should also be allowed, as it also benefits the human race. Correct?
Showing all 18 comments