Cloning is safer - the perils of sexual DNA combination?

[HappySkeptic]

First of all...who decides what 'defects' should be done away with?

That's a prime example of a very slippery slope.

Some may prefer to remove defects -- others may prefer to encourage them.  What if we find a gene for narcissism, and narcissists decide everyone should be that way?

Still, I believe this will come.  People will voluntarily sequence their own genes, and will screen embryos for defects, and for preferred traits like "blue eyes".

[arewethereyet]

First of all...who decides what 'defects' should be done away with?

That's a prime example of a very slippery slope.

Some may prefer to remove defects -- others may prefer to encourage them.  What if we find a gene for narcissism, and narcissists decide everyone should be that way?

Still, I believe this will come.  People will voluntarily sequence their own genes, and will screen embryos for defects, and for preferred traits like "blue eyes".

I agree that it may come but the thought is terrifying.

[Brian37]

I've known many people who are profoundly deformed and crippled, tragically, due to congenital birth defects. Would not cloning be a preferable means by which the species is perpetuated? Individuality/personality would, of course, still exist due to PROFOUND environmental influences. 

Sci fi?

If we cloned Hitler from his DNA, it would not be Hitler, it would just be a contributor of DNA. If you put Hitler's DNA on a ancestry website, he would still be connected to relatives outside his mother and father who don't share his last name. I am not saying you are claiming this, just that there are idiots who would claim it. 

As far as birth defects, just like abortions, medical decisions should only be regulated for safety, but not forced or banned procedures either way by government. Point is, cloning humans, like stem cell research, has the potential solve lots of medical issues, sure, but those on the paranoid far right, not you, but those on the conspiracy right constantly get scared by new technology. I can remember back in the late 70s early 80s the term "test tube baby", and how the far right said that was playing God, now fertility clinics nobody bats an eye at. 

Having said that, there is always the law of unintended consequences. America ended WW2 with two nuclear bombs, but now our entire species has the potential to destroy ourselves.

I have no problem with medical advancements that improve quality of life. But ultimately there will never be a perfect species.

[Spongebob]

I've known many people who are profoundly deformed and crippled, tragically, due to congenital birth defects. Would not cloning be a preferable means by which the species is perpetuated? Individuality/personality would, of course, still exist due to PROFOUND environmental influences. 

If we cloned Hitler from his DNA, it would not be Hitler, it would just be a contributor of DNA. If you put Hitler's DNA on a ancestry website, he would still be connected to relatives outside his mother and father who don't share his last name. I am not saying you are claiming this, just that there are idiots who would claim it. 

Why would you bring this up?  No one asserted that cloning would result in recreating exact duplicates of historical people.

As far as birth defects, just like abortions, medical decisions should only be regulated for safety, but not forced or banned procedures either way by government. Point is, cloning humans, like stem cell research, has the potential solve lots of medical issues, sure, but those on the paranoid far right, not you, but those on the conspiracy right constantly get scared by new technology. I can remember back in the late 70s early 80s the term "test tube baby", and how the far right said that was playing God, now fertility clinics nobody bats an eye at. 

I doubt cloning humans could solve so many medical issues.  Cloning body parts could.  If you clone a human, you have a new human and you can't ethically harvest their parts.

BTW, there are still religious wingnuts who don't like in vitro fertilization.  I used to work with a guy who considered it to be sacrilegious.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Some may prefer to remove defects -- others may prefer to encourage them.  What if we find a gene for narcissism, and narcissists decide everyone should be that way?

Still, I believe this will come.  People will voluntarily sequence their own genes, and will screen embryos for defects, and for preferred traits like "blue eyes".

We also need to be very careful about what we consider defects.

[Anomalocaris]

First of all...who decides what 'defects' should be done away with?

That's a prime example of a very slippery slope.

Some may prefer to remove defects -- others may prefer to encourage them.  What if we find a gene for narcissism, and narcissists decide everyone should be that way?

Still, I believe this will come.  People will voluntarily sequence their own genes, and will screen embryos for defects, and for preferred traits like "blue eyes".

The problem is many “defects” arise from combinations of genes that are individually harmless or beneficial.

In other words, if you want large number of people to benefit from some of a large collection of individually beneficial genes,  some sexual congress of possessor of these beneficial genes will produce defects in their offsprings.

[Peebothuhlu]

I've known many people who are profoundly deformed and crippled, tragically, due to congenital birth defects. Would not cloning be a preferable means by which the species is perpetuated? Individuality/personality would, of course, still exist due to PROFOUND environmental influences. 

Sci fi?

Hello.

'Cloning' already happens naturally in humans. That's when identical (monozygotic) children are born/happen.

There are still cases in this instance of 'Bad things' happening within their development hence co-joined twins.

Or... perhaps you are more advocating for the fetal developmental stage to be taken out of the 'natural' system into a far more controlled and precise 'Artificial' evironment/construct?

I believe there has been much research going on for many years to create just such a device since there are, sadly, many women individually and many couples who for many and various reasons can not biologically have children.

I look forwards to furthe discourse with you.  

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Fake Messiah]

The thing with cloning is that, from what I heard, it's not yet here. Scientists have not figured how to clone, as they call it, more complex animals, let alone humans. There is talk about cloning the mammoth but not even the elephant was successfully cloned or chimpanzees.

Plus, the already cloned animals have health problems, a variety of defects in vital organs, such as the liver, brain, and heart. Other consequences include premature aging and problems with the immune system.

Third, someone already compared it with eugenics. Indeed, who would be the arbitrator of who gets to reproduce/ clone? You can't just forbid people to reproduce.

[Anomalocaris]

as I understand it, the particular health issues encountered by cloned animals but not their parent animals can generally be traced to the type and age of the cells in the parent animal that was used in the cloning.   If the original cell in the parent animal has already undergone many generations of cellular reproduction within the parent animal before it was used for cloning, the chances are higher that animals cloned from its DNA will menifest harmful mutations acquired during past cellular  reproduction by this particular lineage of cells but not generally menifested by all cells in the parent animal.   If the original cell were close to the stem cells, cloning has a high chance producing an exact genetic replica of the parent animal during its own embryonic stage.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Is cloning safer, than what exactly? When cloning the individual is replicated with all of its faults. Is there a limit to the number of times a clone may be taken of a clone?

The term 'eugenics' comes to mind. Very popular until well into the twentieth century, when the Nazis got carried away. At that time not enough was known about genetics and nothing about DNA as far as I'm aware.

Today scientists have begun mapping the human genome. Seems to me that it may only be a matter of time before prospective parents can design their offspring. Eliminating genetic diseases and even pick skin and eye colour, height, and eliminate male pattern balding. Who would get to choose? The parents, after all it's they who will be paying for the procedures. Exactly what they choose will depend on societal norms at the time.

There's an interesting film based on that premise, 'Gatticca'. It shows a future society with two distinct classes of people; the privileged, whose parents designed them, and those conceived and born naturally. They are called 'invalids' and all but the most menial a jobs are closed to them.

A good idea? Morally, possibly not. Practically, probably a great idea if you happen to be rich. Perhaps such would eventually be available to all. I can't see where it could be in an hierarchical capitalist society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca