Cloning
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Cloning
What would the world look like--socioeconomically, geopolitically, culturally, sexually, racially, genetically or in any other regard--if it were acceptable to clone human beings, either living or deceased? Would that world be better or worse off than our current one? If you foresee troubling times in that world, can you propose a way to head off problems before they come to fruition? What would happen to the planet's resources? Will populations increase or diminish? What else can you say about that world? Your answers will be challenged, so think before you post!
Re: Cloning
Well that may depend on which part of the world one will clone people, some may clone a psycho, but in average one may benefit from cloning and get vastly more intelligent people.
Re: Cloning
Some living people might be worth cloning but I can't see the point of cloning the deceased, I don't see how the World would be better off for having even more dead people in it.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:00 am if it were acceptable to clone human beings, either living or deceased? Would that world be better or worse off than our current one?
If we ran short of resources we could just clone more of them.What would happen to the planet's resources?
Yes, I think they will increase or diminish but we should also allow for the possibility of them remaining as they are.Will populations increase or diminish?
It's big and spherical and it spins round once a day.What else can you say about that world?
That's fine but don't expect me to defend them.Your answers will be challenged,
Now you tell me!so think before you post!
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Cloning
the clone of the deceased might put an end to the nature or nurture argument ...
-Imp
-Imp
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Cloning
How so?Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:04 pm the clone of the deceased might put an end to the nature or nurture argument ...
-Imp
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Cloning
Let's assume that psychos cannot be cloned. Let's add to the unclonables those who have an untreatable physical disease. Aside from improved intelligence, what benefits do you think there could be?
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Cloning
they may act unlike their prior incarnationcommonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:20 pmHow so?Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:04 pm the clone of the deceased might put an end to the nature or nurture argument ...
-Imp
-Imp
Re: Cloning
That should be very obvious, better eyesight, better health, better stamina, no mental illness unless it's cause at or during pregnancy, more advanced technology because we have more intelligent people.
Re: Cloning
A full human being can not be cloned. The human 'body', genetic, part can be cloned but the human 'being', inner thinking and feeling, part (so far) can NOT be cloned.
The nurture/nature argument has already been solved and formulated. Imagine cloning a human body now in the year 2017 and then placing that new born human baby body back in the past, say at any time, into a culture that has nothing other than a hand full of spears. As that human body ages and grows, experiencing THAT environment only and interacts with THOSE people only, it will be continually discovering, learning, and "knowing" only from that environment and from those people. So, will the thoughts/knowledge within that growing body be of that environment and of those people, or will it be of things from the year 2017?
If the answer is the latter, then how would that be possible?
ALL thoughts are obtained, along the way, as the human body ages. Thoughts do not exist without a body's prior experience of some thing.
Thoughts can not also be cloned, like genetically physical parts can. There is no (yet) noticeable physicallity nor genetically element to thoughts and feelings, which could therefore be cloned anyway.
Also, if a human body was cloned today, let's say twice, and one cloned body placed in one country and culture and the other cloned body in another country and culture, and the original body remained in the same country and culture, then as each of those three bodies ages and thus experiences more and different things, then the invisible thoughts within each of those bodies will reflect those visible different environments they each live in. Thoughts are always changing because thoughts are derived from the ever changing environment.
The visible body part obviously depends on genetics, thus nature, while the invisible being part within the body is depended solely upon nuture. The actual different experiences that each body has forms the thoughts (and feelings) within each body. The personality (or the personal part) of a human being is the person, itself, which comes from the internal invisible thoughts and feelings within the body, and NOT from the visible physical body itself.
There has never been a real one VERSES the other, nature verse nurture, argument to be had here. In fact there is no real possible one side verses the other side arguments to be had anywhere. The Truth is within every thing.
The logical discussion to have, was and still is to look at what IS the truth instead of what one thinks or believes is the truth. Then logically sound, valid arguments will be and are formed, almost instantly.
The nurture/nature argument has already been solved and formulated. Imagine cloning a human body now in the year 2017 and then placing that new born human baby body back in the past, say at any time, into a culture that has nothing other than a hand full of spears. As that human body ages and grows, experiencing THAT environment only and interacts with THOSE people only, it will be continually discovering, learning, and "knowing" only from that environment and from those people. So, will the thoughts/knowledge within that growing body be of that environment and of those people, or will it be of things from the year 2017?
If the answer is the latter, then how would that be possible?
ALL thoughts are obtained, along the way, as the human body ages. Thoughts do not exist without a body's prior experience of some thing.
Thoughts can not also be cloned, like genetically physical parts can. There is no (yet) noticeable physicallity nor genetically element to thoughts and feelings, which could therefore be cloned anyway.
Also, if a human body was cloned today, let's say twice, and one cloned body placed in one country and culture and the other cloned body in another country and culture, and the original body remained in the same country and culture, then as each of those three bodies ages and thus experiences more and different things, then the invisible thoughts within each of those bodies will reflect those visible different environments they each live in. Thoughts are always changing because thoughts are derived from the ever changing environment.
The visible body part obviously depends on genetics, thus nature, while the invisible being part within the body is depended solely upon nuture. The actual different experiences that each body has forms the thoughts (and feelings) within each body. The personality (or the personal part) of a human being is the person, itself, which comes from the internal invisible thoughts and feelings within the body, and NOT from the visible physical body itself.
There has never been a real one VERSES the other, nature verse nurture, argument to be had here. In fact there is no real possible one side verses the other side arguments to be had anywhere. The Truth is within every thing.
The logical discussion to have, was and still is to look at what IS the truth instead of what one thinks or believes is the truth. Then logically sound, valid arguments will be and are formed, almost instantly.
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Cloning
But what if it were acceptable to clone human beings? What would the world look like?ken wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:16 am A full human being can not be cloned. The human 'body', genetic, part can be cloned but the human 'being', inner thinking and feeling, part (so far) can NOT be cloned.
The nurture/nature argument has already been solved and formulated. Imagine cloning a human body now in the year 2017 and then placing that new born human baby body back in the past, say at any time, into a culture that has nothing other than a hand full of spears. As that human body ages and grows, experiencing THAT environment only and interacts with THOSE people only, it will be continually discovering, learning, and "knowing" only from that environment and from those people. So, will the thoughts/knowledge within that growing body be of that environment and of those people, or will it be of things from the year 2017?
If the answer is the latter, then how would that be possible?
ALL thoughts are obtained, along the way, as the human body ages. Thoughts do not exist without a body's prior experience of some thing.
Thoughts can not also be cloned, like genetically physical parts can. There is no (yet) noticeable physicallity nor genetically element to thoughts and feelings, which could therefore be cloned anyway.
Also, if a human body was cloned today, let's say twice, and one cloned body placed in one country and culture and the other cloned body in another country and culture, and the original body remained in the same country and culture, then as each of those three bodies ages and thus experiences more and different things, then the invisible thoughts within each of those bodies will reflect those visible different environments they each live in. Thoughts are always changing because thoughts are derived from the ever changing environment.
The visible body part obviously depends on genetics, thus nature, while the invisible being part within the body is depended solely upon nuture. The actual different experiences that each body has forms the thoughts (and feelings) within each body. The personality (or the personal part) of a human being is the person, itself, which comes from the internal invisible thoughts and feelings within the body, and NOT from the visible physical body itself.
There has never been a real one VERSES the other, nature verse nurture, argument to be had here. In fact there is no real possible one side verses the other side arguments to be had anywhere. The Truth is within every thing.
The logical discussion to have, was and still is to look at what IS the truth instead of what one thinks or believes is the truth. Then logically sound, valid arguments will be and are formed, almost instantly.
Re: Cloning
Obviously you did not take in much, or any, of what I said, but to answer your question, the 'world' earth would have more similar looking bodies on it. That is about it.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:19 amBut what if it were acceptable to clone human beings? What would the world look like?ken wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:16 am A full human being can not be cloned. The human 'body', genetic, part can be cloned but the human 'being', inner thinking and feeling, part (so far) can NOT be cloned.
The nurture/nature argument has already been solved and formulated. Imagine cloning a human body now in the year 2017 and then placing that new born human baby body back in the past, say at any time, into a culture that has nothing other than a hand full of spears. As that human body ages and grows, experiencing THAT environment only and interacts with THOSE people only, it will be continually discovering, learning, and "knowing" only from that environment and from those people. So, will the thoughts/knowledge within that growing body be of that environment and of those people, or will it be of things from the year 2017?
If the answer is the latter, then how would that be possible?
ALL thoughts are obtained, along the way, as the human body ages. Thoughts do not exist without a body's prior experience of some thing.
Thoughts can not also be cloned, like genetically physical parts can. There is no (yet) noticeable physicallity nor genetically element to thoughts and feelings, which could therefore be cloned anyway.
Also, if a human body was cloned today, let's say twice, and one cloned body placed in one country and culture and the other cloned body in another country and culture, and the original body remained in the same country and culture, then as each of those three bodies ages and thus experiences more and different things, then the invisible thoughts within each of those bodies will reflect those visible different environments they each live in. Thoughts are always changing because thoughts are derived from the ever changing environment.
The visible body part obviously depends on genetics, thus nature, while the invisible being part within the body is depended solely upon nuture. The actual different experiences that each body has forms the thoughts (and feelings) within each body. The personality (or the personal part) of a human being is the person, itself, which comes from the internal invisible thoughts and feelings within the body, and NOT from the visible physical body itself.
There has never been a real one VERSES the other, nature verse nurture, argument to be had here. In fact there is no real possible one side verses the other side arguments to be had anywhere. The Truth is within every thing.
The logical discussion to have, was and still is to look at what IS the truth instead of what one thinks or believes is the truth. Then logically sound, valid arguments will be and are formed, almost instantly.
Are you happy with that answer? Or, do you already have another answer that you really want to share, for us to have a look at?