Human Cloning

Post Reply New Topic

I'm all for it. There's nothing I can see wrong with it ethically since it is done at a cellular level, way before it develops into a fetus and becomes conscious. It does bring up an issue with me in regards to overpopulation but other than that it would be interesting to see what else our scientists would learn along the way as well.

I think that too; of course it would only be possible if the law don't consider clones as real persons. It theorically could be done for many specialised works, but then individuality could lost all meaning.

A potential issue with cloning would be a potential lack of genetic diversity (As it would be the best "models" that would repetivelly cloned.), with the result that humanity as a whole become more vulnerable to pandemia.

Robots are a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to control than clones and the military is developing them at full speed. Robots can be manufactured to specs and whenever they are needed. It takes about 20 years to create a cloned soldier.

agreed. humans have a lot of unnecessary baggage that just catches bullets, when it comes to warfighting. an intelligently designed soldier would be far superior in many aspects.

i wouldn't say that islam, judaism, and christianity are all the same religion. they're all based on the same religion, but they're quite divergent. ffs, mormons, baptists, and roman catholics all believe the same religion? maybe, if you want to say things like that, you should learn more about the subject.

as to your "very humble" agnosticism, have you ever heard of bertrand russel's teapot? perhaps, if you weren't so humbly full of yourself, you'd have a care about the point of the word "agnostic." tell me, are you similarly agnostic when it comes to the great Flying Spaghetti Monster? if there is "literally NO proof" of something existing, how much "proof" do you require before you'd be willing to accept that it doesn't exist?

what would that "proof" look like?

to say that "anyone who thinks they are God's chosen people in a universe as big as ours are extremely narcissistic and full of themselves which automatically disproves their poorly put together theory" doesn't seem to fit with your idea of being "Agnostic." i agree with your statement, which is why the very next thing you said was so ridiculous.

"Agnostic" indeed.

Great!

xkcd is awesome.

Unaware of what, exactly?
I thing you misinterpret what I said.

To try and make things clearer - my view:
1. There is no objective truth in defining good and bad.
2. Therefor, it isn't true to say that life is intrinsically good.
3. Your view of life is subjective.
4. My view of life is subjective.
5. If I say that I don't like jazz music, and you do, that doesn't mean that one of us is wrong.
6. While you can claim that I don't know enough jazz, and that's why I don't like it - that's just an assumption.
7. You have no way to prove that if I know enough jazz, and look at it "the right way", I would enjoy it.
8. I'm not obliged in any way to try and like jazz if I don't want to.
9. If you tell me that I've no choice but to try and like jazz, 'cause it's everywhere and I can't avoid it - you might be right about it being worth giving a try.
10. That doesn't mean that I have to contribute anything to jazz music until I'm convinced.
11. If I am convinced that it's good, that still doesn't mean that you were objectively right to say that jazz is good.
12. I still wouldn't force my kids to play or to listen to jazz music - let them decide for themselves.
13. Life, like jazz music, or like acting, or like being a doctor, or whatever, is something that you might and might not enjoy.
14. Forcing people to live is worse than forcing them to play jazz, because they can stop playing jazz, but it's not so easy to stop living.
15. Some people work very hard, and then achieve happiness. Others think that the years of hard work isn't worth the joy. None is objectively right/wrong.
16. It is legitimate to think that the pain I've been through isn't necessarily worth the joy I might experience.
17. It is legitimate to think that I'd be best without both the possible happiness, and without the misery - without life, without feeling.
18. You can't prove that I will enjoy life later on.
19. Based on this, giving birth to a person means the possibility of creating a person who will suffer.
20. Even if you are objectively right, and life is good, fact is that many people live without seeing this alleged truth.
21. If they live without seeing it, what does it actually matter? If they don't see the truth of life's good, than life isn't good for them.
22. That pretty much cancels the assumption that life is intrinsically good, as it wasn't good for them, and if they killed themselves, their lives were a pain to their beloved ones, who had to expeirence their death.
23. If you still claim life is objectively good, that means that some people are obviously lacking the ability or way to see it.
24. If you don't have a way of proving that to them, and convincing them, then you accept that life is bad for some people, those who don't see that it's good.
25. Since you can't tell if a person will enjoy living before his birth, that's a risk that I think is not fair to the unborn child. You may think otherwise.
26. So I'm one of those people who see things "wrong", or that are "simply unaware" - why don't I have the right not to like life? Why isn't it considered a rational legitimate view, based on my subjective feelings? Why can I reject anything in life, but life itself?
27. Last - assuming that I will see thing differently later on, therefor there's no problem with my birth, means that you decide that my suffering was worth it. I think it's my right to reject this notion. I think that I have a right to decide things like that, about my own life, myself. I respect that right of my unborn offsprings as well, and won't decide for them that they should live.

I said nothing about rights.

Most people who deny my right don't say that I don't have it, they just become highly defensive, or act as if I said something wrong, whereas they don't treat this way my other negative views about things they like. It's as if they deny that they are denying...
But nevermind, I accept that you specifically don't deny this right.

So, how is your last reply relevant to what I said? I'm unaware of what? And how is that thing that I'm unware of going to change my view? I don't see what I can possibly go through that will change my mind. I can see how I it's possible that I will enjoy life (although I regard that unlikely), but that has nothing to do with life not being worth living.

I don't think that anything is worth doing in the first place, since I don't see how life is worth it.
That's like doing a futile job, and saying that something is worth doing, because it's good for getting the job done. But the bottom line is that this action you just did, which helped you to complete your task, was futile - because the task itself was.

The only things that in my opinion are really worth doing just prove why there's no point in living in the first place.
You can say that it's worth helping rape victims, for example, but it would be better off if they weren't raped. So when people say that their purpose in life is helping people, that's absurd to me. Doctors gain their alleged purpose from the attrocities of the world. They minimise the damage, and that's what life is about. Minimising damage and pain. If someone does a great job helping victims of violence it's not a wonderful thing - it's a sad thing. It's better than if no one did it, but still, the damage is there.
For others, helping people is a reason to live. For me, the need for help is a reason not to.

I simply don't understand how anything can make me see that it's better for me to exist than not to.
And I'm always open to hear other opinions or explanations. I still haven't encountered anyone who showed me anything that convinced me, even when I really wanted to be convinced. Philosophy, psychology, religion - everything. Nothing convinced me so far. If anything, people just came to admit that it can't be changed, as they can't "tackle" my arguments. They can see it differently, but they can't rule out my logic and feelings.
I understand that you have more experience, but my case is considered special by everyone I've met - including high-profile psychotherapists, who admitted that my case is much more than only a mental problem, but also a philosophy, which they cannot argue with. And they tried, for my benefit, so that if I look at things another way, I'd feel better. They couldn't. It's not a thing of a young age, really. I've been developing my philosophy since the age of 12. People no longer tell me I'll see things differently when I grow up, or that I'm just depressed, or frustrated, or stubborn, as they used to, as they come to understand that it's much deeper than that. Even when I'm entirely happy (that's rare) or satisfied, I still think the same way.

Let me explain my outlook. Although I have lived a longer than average life I have not really begun to explore what minor abilities I possess. I consider it a major privilege merely to be alive. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of other spermatozoa could have fertilized my mother's egg and somebody else would have the opportunity granted me to live a life. I would never have existed. Humans are a rather special and interesting type of animal and since I was granted the capacity of being human there are things open to me that, say, an oyster or a jellyfish or a butterfly or even a rooster would find unlikely or impossible. Roosters or oysters have never attained a college degree or enjoyed Beethoven or Lewis Carroll or Shakespeare or Groucho Marx. Roosters do evidently have fun screwing chickens, something I could never contemplate even as a hobby, but I'll take Beethoven against that anytime. I have no idea at all what oysters do for recreation.To discard this fantastic short time to be alive as not worthwhile is simply to be unaware. The afterlife, of course, is a mere religious scam and total BS.