Book Idea: Setting Boston, 2033
A wife complains that running the food synthesizer and telling the robot to make the beds is wearing her out and not leaving her enough time to virtu-visit her friends and mind-experience tactile-romance novels. She demands that her husband, an over-worked junk-belly investments manager, buy her a clone (or else no more sex.) The clone is to be used as a house slave, and this is legal because to get out of the federally run slime-creation chamber, all clones have to have written agreements with, and permission from, their cellular originator. Clones emerge fully grown to adults, and are taught to speak and basic skills by spending their first 3 months of life in negative reinforcement life training compounds, where they must learn quickly or be whipped, hosed with water cannons, and used as sex slaves. Most originators demand 20 to 30 years of servitude, in exchange for being granted life, and they have to sign the agreement before they are released from the slime-creation chambers. Those who refuse to sign, or who try to escape, are recycled.

At first Jinex (the wife) is pleased with her Christmas present of a new clone-slave. JinexII looks exactly like Jinex at age 21 (Jinex is now 37). The young clone has youth and stamina and quickly learns all tasks required of her. She even successfully paints the entire 18-room house, inside and out, by hand. She becomes very useful; Jinex and her husband come to feel that they can't imagine any more how they could get by without her. Soon though she becomes TOO useful, and TOO indispensible, and she feels that power. She resents her position. She wants a real life, the "real gusto." Little Ekasti, the son, refuses to go to sleep without a story from JinexII (and won't allow Jinex to read it to him).

Etc, etc... Jinex finds her clothes and shoes borrowed by JinexII... Jinex comes home to find JinexII in bed with her husband... You get the idea. Identity theft a la clone!!!!

Book Idea: Setting Boston, 2033
A wife complains that running the food synthesizer and telling the robot to make the beds is wearing her out and not leaving her enough time to virtu-visit her friends and mind-experience tactile-romance novels. She demands that her husband, an over-worked junk-belly investments manager, buy her a clone (or else no more sex.) The clone is to be used as a house slave, and this is legal because to get out of the federally run slime-creation chamber, all clones have to have written agreements with, and permission from, their cellular originator. Clones emerge fully grown to adults, and are taught to speak and basic skills by spending their first 3 months of life in negative reinforcement life training compounds, where they must learn quickly or be whipped, hosed with water cannons, and used as sex slaves. Most originators demand 20 to 30 years of servitude, in exchange for being granted life, and they have to sign the agreement before they are released from the slime-creation chambers. Those who refuse to sign, or who try to escape, are recycled.

At first Jinex (the wife) is pleased with her Christmas present of a new clone-slave. JinexII looks exactly like Jinex at age 21 (Jinex is now 37). The young clone has youth and stamina and quickly learns all tasks required of her. She even successfully paints the entire 18-room house, inside and out, by hand. She becomes very useful; Jinex and her husband come to feel that they can't imagine any more how they could get by without her. Soon though she becomes TOO useful, and TOO indispensible, and she feels that power. She resents her position. She wants a real life, the "real gusto." Little Ekasti, the son, refuses to go to sleep without a story from JinexII (and won't allow Jinex to read it to him).

Etc, etc... Jinex finds her clothes and shoes borrowed by JinexII... Jinex comes home to find JinexII in bed with her husband... You get the idea. Identity theft a la clone!!!!

Almost all of the "objections" to cloning and to clones are seen to be invalid by replacing the clone, in the argument, with a naturally born identical twin.

A woman's identical twin could be enslaved with as much or as little justice as her clone might be enslaved.

A woman's identical twin can seduce her husband and make an adulterer out of him, just as the woman's clone might do.

There's no reason to suppose that legal rights would not be accorded to cloned persons. And, because of that, any argument that assumes that clones might be treated differently than identical twins is based on special pleading and adverse prejudice in regard to cloning humans.

Well hello there, 1jah2haile34.

Yes, sex is the usual trigger for the reproductive mechanism among animals. But sidestepping sex and "hot wiring" the mechanism did not begin with cloning. For a long time, women who have had trouble conceiving a child have been having their eggs fertilized in vitro and then surgically implanted. This isn't cloning. It is merely getting a doctor to assist in making sure that the husband's sperm find and merge with the wife's egg cell.

Do you have an objection to in vitro fertilization? If not, then your stated objection to cloning disappears, since in vitro fertilization avoids sex just as much as cloning does.

I rather think that the Illuminati, or, rather, the race of hominids whose evil deeds are often attributed to the Illuminati, wish to PREVENT cloning, at least by races other than their own. This evil race wants to weaken other races, so that infiltrating them and then enslaving them will be easier to do. THEY don't want their prey becoming stronger and smarter, no. Since strength and intelligence are heritable to a high degree, cloning can offer a way to accelerate the rise of strength and intelligence for the people who practice it. These so-called "Illuminati" don't want that to happen. So they propagandize against cloning, and they try to enlist religious sentiments against cloning among the people who are to be their victims, eventually.

No, Satan isn't advocating cloning. Rather, the nearest thing to Satan in the real world is opposing cloning, and they are using every available rhetorical trick, every possible deception, to prejudice human minds against it.

I don't have any problems with sex. But I don't have any problems with cloning, either. Sex results in a dice toss combination of human genes. We need sex to produce these unpredictable results so that we can choose the people with the best combinations of genes and give them more chances to sexually reproduce.

But a human can only spend so much of his time having sex. In order to give the best combinations of genes extra chances to propagate sexually, we may first clone additional copies of those especially favorable gene combinations. When there are two people with the same set of genes, they have together more breeding opportunities than either of them would have alone. That's what cloning is for.

This problem began "millions"(more like millenias)of years ago,when Eve "ate an aple"(sucambed to the temtation of abusing with higher knowledge).Thus,total abuse with the higher knowledge and the science-to-be originated.
Over time science got more and more infected with such an abuse that in it's own conflicts with the basic moral and ethics required for a

Continuing from the previous (above):

- healthy social and civic progress.

Often science,due to that abuse(the bite-on the aple),ends-up as merchandise for sale to the higher bider regardles.

We all must deal with the demons we invite.

cheers. :-)

> "This problem began "millions" (more like millennia) of years ago, when Eve "ate an apple" (succumbed to the temptation of abusing with higher knowledge). Thus, total abuse with the higher knowledge and the science-to-be originated. Over time science got more and more infected with such an abuse that in its own conflicts with the basic moral and ethics required for a healthy social and civic progress. Often science, due to that abuse (the bite-on the apple), ends up as merchandise for sale to the highest bidder regardless. We all must deal with the demons we invite."

Nope.

The highest purpose of morality is to preserve the group that practices it, and to advance their prospects for future survival. In the hierarchy of values, life comes first, truth second, and all else comes after.

Life is the highest value because no other thing has value without it. Neither truth, nor freedom, nor justice, nor comfort have any value to the dead. Only to something alive may anything be good.

Truth is the next in value, since all its subordinate values won't endure without it. Justice will become corrupt, freedom will be stolen, comfort will disappear... without truth.

Values like justice and fairness are not the primary object of morality. They are, in fact, moral luxuries, to be indulged only when they don't threaten any higher value. And "social progress," which means, more or less, that the extant races of hominids ought to be generally equal of circumstances because they are equals in quality and in character, is a mischief based upon a lie. The moral value of JUSTICE is positive, though it is inferior to the value of truth. The moral value of "social justice" is negative, since it is in conflict with truth--and, in fact, also in conflict with life.

Re: Clone Identity Theft as Plot for Novel

It seems to me that your equating an identical twin to a clone has severe defects:

1.) Twins are born at the same time, and thus have the same age. In the novel Plot, as in reality, clones would be "born" (or in the Plot, be allowed to leave the slime-creation chambers) a few decades after the cell donor's birth. This would make the clone much younger than the donor, yes? Hence the possibility of identity theft, and adultery with younger clone, etc.

2.) A man and a woman decide to have a baby, and they receive twins. This is no big shock to them. But clone creation is vastly different than this. There is no loving family for the clone to be born into.

3.) The reason people have babies is to create a nuclear family. They want to raise a child together. You assume that it would be the same with clone creation? Why?? This issue may be rephrased as, What is the purpose of creating a clone? Do you agree that there may be several purposes, depending on the individual? And that one purpose may be to have a slave? For when Jinex's husband (in the Plot) buys a clone for her (and here we must assume he pays the fees or expences, or gov't permit fee, for cloning can hardly be free). Doesn't one who pays, and also donates a cell to be slim-formed, have ownership or control rights? And a responsibility to the clone, to provide it a place to live, a job, food?

The Plot has clones emerging from slime fully grown, but if they were to emerge as infants, or even as 8 year olds, it is the same-- Someone must pay for their creation, training, housing, employment. Why, there are not enough jobs and houses as it is in the world of 2009, nor any reason to expect these conditions to improve. Surely you do not envision millions of clones being just "dumped" into the local economies of the world, with no one responsible for them, no jobs for them, no houses, no rules!

Millions of poorly-trained clones, perhaps with bodies of 21-year-olds, but minds and development state of a 3-year-old, wandering the streets, like Frankenstein's monsters... perhaps joining together into wandering bands, marauding, stealing food... perhaps, through the making of innocent mistakes, as F's monster did, meaning no harm, but frightened or vengeful villagers chasing them with torches and pitch forks! Surely you don't want that!

4.) Yes, someone will have to pay for the slime process, it could hardly be cheap. Lots of guys in white lab coats, with PhD degrees from Harvard and MIT and clipboards. All kinds of nutrient feeding tubes, to keep the ooze the right levels of amino acids, phosphates, and glucose, constant samples and checking on the slime salinity and PH levels. This kind of high level staff cannot be gotten cheaply... and the taxpayers, simple selfish morons as they are, won't want to pay for it. Not when "our own son Phil can't find a job, you're not going to create a bunch of eager, scrubbed faced, hard working clones to take all the jobs, and us humans don't have any!" There would indeed be pitchforks and torches to put an end to that.

In the Plot, Jinex's husband has to pay thousands of Ameros for the cloning of Janex's cell. The price must be high for another reason. If one could create a clone for 100 Ameros, everyone would buy several of them. Cindy Crawford and Angelina Jolie could make millions selling "starter cells" for 20 Ameros each, and every 20 year old guy would buy at least one. And I don't need to detail what "jobs" these masses of new, rudimentarily trained beauties would be put to.

I was referring to alleged moral objections to cloning. I didn't say that cloning couldn't be a fit subject for a science fiction story.

However, you said that cloning is different than a twin because the twin has loving parents, whereas the clone does not. On the other hand, how is cloning necessarily different than, or more objectionable than, or more problematic than (take your pick) an adoption service for naturally born babies? How is it that clones are less likely to be matched with a good adoptive or foster family than a naturally born orphan or adoptive child?

Once again, we see that an alleged unusual difficulty actually does not exist.

Any risk of exploitation that a cloned child experiences is experienced also by orphans and adoptive children. The same protective regulations that apply to orphans and adoptive children can be made to apply to cloned children in exactly the same way.

What is the purpose for creating a clone? I've answered that question already in another reply. The purpose of cloning is to give the finest exemplars of human excellence more individual embodiments. Each clone will be a different person, just as identical twins are different people, but they will all have the same genes, again just as identical twins do. If clones are made from the genetically best people, the people who are strongest, smartest, most dexterous, most agile, best behaved, possessed of the best in sensory acuity, the greatest stamina, and the least affected by hereditary disease, then there will be more chances for these genes to enter the breeding stock of mankind, to be propagated thereafter by sexual reproduction.

That's what cloning is for.

Of course clones can be abused. But so can orphans be. So can children put up for adoption be. While the abuse of clones is a possibility, it is not a unique problem, and the same legal mechanisms that protect the orphans and the adoptive children can also protect clones.

If we want to make organs for people who needs them ... it is agood idea , for example many people need kidney or heart ... may be we can modify the cloning for this type help .... I am not good at english ...i do applogise

What about this one...If all the moral, ethical and religious arguaments where agreed upon on a concesus, and it was possible to replicate the original humans via genetic engineering (human cloning) would you agree that it would be more socially justifiable to design them with a much shorter life expectancy than average to both integrate them into the social environment that would eventually incorporate them as an additional part of the broader community and help the broader community learn an emotional and moral understanding of how these clones would actually evolve alongside their orignals...maybe it could be a foundation to give all the human-race a time out...however you take that...-

There was a movie about that recently. The clones didn't know that they were clones. They were sleep brainwashed given a fabric of childhood memories, including their parents death in auto or plane crash. One of the clones begin to suspect something, and managed to escape. When he learned on the outside that the "institute" in which he thought he lived and worked as a free citizen was actually a clone creation, indoctrination, and containment facility, and that his large cloning and training fee had been paid by a rich fat slob who ruined his own liver by drinking too much Ao800 per bottle wine and champaign (850 Ameros, the future currency replacing the dollar because of massive inflation caused by $81 Trillion bailout thefts of the early 2000's), he of course goes on a killing rampage, rescues his clone girlfriend right before her lungs are removed and transplanted into an aging sex-godess who smoked her lungs to mush... Fairly good movie, but like most modern action films, too little character development.

Hoy...what about the 'BLOB. if you recreated a genetic clone that would eventually master is own creation from plasm, then sent it to a neighbouring planet that you knew it was able to survive, after a pre-determined amount of time that it was programmed to evolve into, then you wouldn't have any of the social or ethical upset with society and you could also create a humodial-soup that could be monitored at a distance...-(ever seen the 1997 movie 'mars attacks')...that could work!!!

Or was it 1996..that one anyway. without boys girls aren't that useful..

Yes, it is difficult to put a stop to the evil that the pursuit of profits motivate corporations to do. But this difficulty is not much different than putting a stop to the wicked ways of an evil dictator who is hurting people. The answer, is--kill him. Invade his precincts, point a gun at his head, and pull the trigger. Destroy anything and anyone who tries to stand in the way. Make the evil-doer die. Then he can't do the evil things any more. Military action is how moral people with power can eliminate evil people with power. The application is the same, whether the evil one is the "chief executive officer" of a country or of a corporation. Evil has a sure win only if good forswears the use of force and does not act.

By the way, if you want to read a good science fiction series that has the corporate exploitation of clones as part of the plot, then buy THE VORKOSIGAN ADVENTURE, by Lois McMaster Bujold. The good guys eventually bring in a team of mercenaries and help the clones to escape. A while later, they send an assassin after one the top bad guy and, after a bit of struggle, the bad guy is toast. That's how you deal with corporate bosses who forget their morals.

I might point out, however, that the theft of human organs happens already, even without clones to take them from. Not long ago, a Jewish rabbi was arrested in New Jersey by the FBI for trying to sell a human kidney. The rabbi was part of an international organ trafficking business that acquired kidneys by luring people from East Europe to Israel, where their kidneys were removed, sometimes at gunpoint. The exploited European would then be released, and his kidney would be put on ice and delivered to the USA for sale to the highest bidder. The rabbi's part of the business was finding the customers and arranging the deal with a curiously unsuspicious hospital administrator.

I have seen photographs of dead Palestinians whose corpses had been cut open from neck down to crotch, and then sewn back together again. Some of the photos had captions telling me that the dead people's organs had been removed.

I have always been curious about what kind of "retirement plan" there was for the women who were kidnapped from their homes in Russia and enslaved in Israeli brothels. What happens to them when they get too old to attract customers? Maybe they are killed, too, and their organs taken and sold to give the brothel owners a last little bit of profit from her.

Clones would be people, not a bit different ethically from anyone else. To put them in farms so that their organs could be "harvested" (stolen) later would be just as bad as putting anyone else in the same situation.

That movie was amazing. It was called The Island, wasn't it? Geez, that's my favorite movie. To those who haven't watched it, i recommend it as a very feasable possibilty if we begin human cloning. Stem cell research will provide all the tissue we need for huma transplant, so why do human cloning? It's just because the scientists know that they can. But just because you have the potential to do something doesn't make it a good idea. PROTEST HUMAN CLONING.

Conflict, territory, disagreeable scents, conjoined brains...man's imposition on nature to change his environment to suit his needs and intervene as much as possible with the primordial-soup to beautify mans potential...may now be at such an evolutinary stage that the inclusion of cloned materials into his forebearers environment is becoming an option...

That was meant to say psychological.. if you are able to play with nature to this extent and reproduce the substance of your own existence..basically you have to be cautious how it is incorporated into the society that made it possible in the first place..you also say concrete jungle quite loosely because that is exactly what this whole arguament(however you spell it)is fundamentally about...the best of medicine, or otherwise, in the most upto date environment-

Hi there

You sure,you not inviting any demons there?! :-) :-)

Moral is the firm upholding of the values already set and accepted as true,whatever the values be,I think.
As you say; the life, truth and justice are very dear to us all.
Without morality we end up diminishing the values of the above.

Immorality leads to; life,truth and justice ending up as merchandise for sale regardless.
Immorality is the bypassing of the true long established values by reasoning; "that some time under some circumstances is allowed or needed to do so, or even required to".

So,to kill, murder and destroy, by any standard, end-up to be labeled and considered as immoral,we like it or not.

The only chance for a sane social and civic progress rests with the moral ability of that social and civic order.

Moral in a way means; to be (or at least trying the best to be) all the time as fair as possible regardless of the circumstances.

That is what I think.

cheers :-)

> "Moral is the firm upholding of the values already set and accepted as true, whatever the values be, I think."

I disagree. What you described is LAW. By using passive voice in your statement, you concealed the actor, the ones who do the "firm upholding." That actor is mankind, the human agency and its institutions, most especially the law.

No, the law is not morality.

Morality is NOT whatever values are "already set and accepted as true." Morality and law can support the same values, but this is not necessarily the case, and in general there is a substantial difference between morality and the values firmly upheld by human institutions.

That is, the laws can be immoral. And, in fact, the laws are frequently immoral. They require people to forswear attempts to help their race survive, to deny a future existence to the molecular information that made them possible.

The law, working moral corruption, endeavors to place the individual interests of people against their genetic interest in propagating their kind. "Deny the survival of your race, accept handicaps upon your genetic propagation, or you shall be made personally to suffer!" is essentially what the laws sometimes say.

Government and family are not friends; they are competing bases for fundamental human organization and, as such, they are old enemies. Never believe a politician who proclaims his fidelity to family values. If he had family values, he wouldn't be seeking a good-paying job among the enemies of his race.

Greetings Jenab6
We were not speaking about in vitro we said CLONING!!! there is a difference. You can twist the Iluminati Agenda if you want to it doesn't change the fact that it did not exist NATURALLY therefore it is an UN-NATURAL Phenomenon!!! Anything UN-NATURAL is SATAN or NON-PRODUCTIVE!!! Hence Homosexuals;it is an Un-Natural act, The Proof of it is Where are the Offsprings of their Man-man/Woman-woman UNIONS??? Adoption is not "OFFSPRING" I am dealing with the Prototype D.N.A. I am not Judging them,just stating that as an Un-NATURAL act it is NON-PRODUCTIVE!!! just like cloning it is Un-Natural therfore NON-PRODUCTIVE!!!!

Hello JenaB6.

Very pleased of your reply.

Pleased to see that you disagree with my understanding of the "moral" and still ending-up describing it more or less in the same way.
Apart from your misunderstanding of the difference between the firm upholding of the values... and these values..., it seams we are barking at the same tree. The "firm upholding" it is an action (a performance,an applying) while the values in their own are not action.

Laws can some time be corrupt. While the laws do contradict the very essence of the concept they uphold; "the striking of the balance in the matter or the subject concerned" then it could be said they are corrupt.
In the cases when this is a clear understanding but allowed and "justified" through that reasoning described in my previous reply to you then these lows are not only corrupt but also immoral.

So when the killing, murder and destruction are not considered crimes and allowed and "justified" through that reasoning then they also are immoral.

There is not only laws, there also are the rules. Rules are not made, they simply are. And many of these are not social but natural.
Legislating social laws that contradict such rules it is a paradox which often ends-up to have very harsh and hazardous consequences.
Assure you; rules can't be broken, bended or reformed. Only we can be broken, bended or reformed around them. Which ever be the case is up to us.

"Evolution of species comes through variation." This is one among many rules of nature.
"Life is not for sale." it is another one.
"There is no mercy on killing." ...etc.

We may like to reproduce and propagate our genes through the intercourse with close family members.
The rules of life and evolution do not really allow it.
Sooner or later that line of reproduction and propagation ends-up corrupted faulty and discarded.
The reproduction through "cloning"(if that really possible) fares even worse.That will be propagation of one with one's self.A paradox as far as evolution cares.
Life and evolution are one and can not be as separated.

So immorality is the act of reasoning with conviction the allowing and "justifying" of the unjustifiable.
Generally it is a weakness to face the truth.

Motivations to immorality can be many. But greed,vanity and feverish passion top them all,I think.
Luck of self control it's fertile ground.

Morality is the firm upholding of these rules, the values that are not breakable, bendable or reformable.

It is an act of reason and reasoning upholding the truth regardless and despite of the huge temptation to the illusive contradictions and paradoxes that often seam more promising and attractive than the truth.

Hope you understand my point. :-) :-)

PSYCOLOGICAL.....Psychological..Psychology..however you spell it. you are all discussing a physical organism that has been created to resemble the human form, whether that be cloning for medical components or complete cloned humans..unquestionably there must be infinate uses and out comes for this level of scientific potential but does anybody actually think that whatever some of the physical results may be, would they ever be able to compare to what what came before them...I don't !

Surely the sole purpose OF= cloning is production !

The illuminati are mostly clones, the members of the 13 families may have millions of offspring that are implanted in other women and guided later into positions of athority. These include heads of police, military and corporations. The majority are actually (sheep dogs)Movie stars, sports, media and musicians. Thier job is to herd us and distract us until thier masters return to slaughter us. Baaaaaah

Democrats don't have the intelligence to form a question to ask 'anyone.

The reason for cloing is simple. If there is ever a question society will do it's utmost to answer it. Cloning is many questions and the answers will eventually be answered, even if we destroy ourselves in the process. Even the questions we have yet to ask could be the demise of the world, the Hadron Collider for instance. What will the results of THC be if it cannot be controlled after starting it on some atomic journey.

Genedarwin

Surely you can't really mean this. I could say the same for republicans, however, we both know I would be wrong. There is brillance in both, we just have to learn to use it in the most optimum way...

Law of nature states that....no one can create nor destroy matter .....cloning is creating isn't it.

I can think of another potential downside to cloning.

Now, the following situation would be completely hypothetical. Say that we managed to achieve cloning on a mass scale, right? That means there would a good portion of our respective societies as clones.

From history, we should be able to see that an introduction of a new class, race or what-have-you into society generally results in racism.

We can see it with colonisation of Africa, Hitler's Nazi Germany etc.
It is quite possible that certain people in society would see clones as 'sub-human'since they were not naturally conceived. If someone views something else as inferior, then they will exploit that inferiority directly at the subject.

This would cause even more racist groups being developed. Racist groups and movements being developed would eventually lead to violent actions. Violent actions would lead to death. Death leads to disease. To carry out said actions, weapons would be needed. I'm sure you can see the continuum and 'knock-on' effect?

I think there is already enough chaos within the medical world as it is, without the prospect of cloning.

The problems which would arise I believe far outweigh the advantages of such a thing being allowed to take place. I think there are enough severe problems as regards our human rights presently, especially within the NHS.

There are enough blunders taking pace already, which vastly need improvement, such as the scenario pople face when they are left severely disfigured or killed by accidentally by a member or members of our National Health Service, who choose not to have a redress in place to accept responsibility for their actions.

Why do we need more mayhem to be forced upon us, by more experimentation medically? We should be trying to improve our quality of life as we know it, not to make the world more complex by creating freaks intentionally!

I agree with You Zerogee.I think we should save the technology for the future cos we don't know of what becomes of the world in the nearest future considering the threats of global warming and extinction.For now,I will suggest that the science should be restricted to only organs of the body like kidney, brain,liver etc.These organs can b transplanted to save humans.

As per Aristotle,Nature is an inner principle of change and being at rest.
The world is constantly changing,social demographics,New technologies and global warming are powerful forces driving contemporary change. Yet most of us don't like change, and often we make bad changes.

Human race is progressing with continuous change, say, from arboreal living to the present astronauts living in their orbital sattelites.

There is nothing wrong in cloning, because it is a copying process instead of creating a human being. When nature provides the benefits of DNA replication or repitition of variable sections for example, Genetic fingerprinting:
Forensic scientists can use DNA in various bio-fluids, blood, semen, skin, saliva or hair found at a crime scene to identify a matching DNA of an individual, such as a perpetrator.
If we consider cloning in the same phenominon it will be benificial and usable for various abnormalities.
We have to live with positive attitude, not like as geocentric primitive civilization.

This Isn't a reply to anyone in particular, it is just an opinion. I think there are enough people already, and we don't need any more. That is why cloning is a bad idea.

It would be interesting to clone Albert Einstein. Maybe we would obtain more insight into the workings of the Cosmos. At the same time the clone might end up as the most cunning gangster of all time since he would have a different mother. Either way, it would advance the science one way or the other.

regards,

"Interesting" to clone Albert Einstein? That's just what I am talking about (see my next above)! Einstein was one of the leading techno-freaks of the 20th Century! He slaved for years on the dream of creating an atomic reaction. His theory of relativity (which no one really understands, thank God) is noting but relavitism, i.e. nihilism. When he and his so-called genius colleagues got ready to explode the first atomic bomb, some of the "lesser" and less influential geniuses protested that it should not be done, because no one new what the consequences would be. Very possibly the chain reaction would go on to the edges of the universe, destroying every atom in existence! No one knew what would happen, but the Geniuses said go ahead! What the hell! We SHOULD do it because we CAN do it!

Do you see anything wrong with the above? Do you see it is the worship of technology and personal profit and personal fame above all else? To the exclusion of all that really matters? Atomic bombs did not have the effect that the lesser geniuses feared, but is not their effect terrible? Along with thousands of other inventions and scientific "developments?"

Bush and his replacement are mere mouthpieces for the military industrial complex and its parent company, global mega-capitalism (sweatshops, robotics, mega-plantations growing higher and higher percentages of GMO food, chemical additives... DDT, Agent Orange, cover the earth with asphalt paring lots...) No room here to list even the top 100 horrible advancements made in the name of science profits. Just because Monsanto or Pepsi Corp has the money and the Harvard and Stanford tech graduates on their payroll to invent things like artificial lemonade, does that mean they SHOULD invent it, advertise it, and pour it down the throats of techno-junkie brainwashed clone lovers like YOU? In any civilized society, these tens of thousands of inventions would be outlawed. But that's not likely in the "developed" world.

The clone lovers, the Einstein idolitors, are so arrogant they think that brainwashing by the corporate media and corporate politicians is something that happens to others. Others less intelligent than themselves.

I was not in favor of the atomic bomb either. But government does whatever it wants to do - regardless of any objections people may have. There is some validity, however, to the arguement that the bomb saved American lives as well as bringing the war to an immediate halt. The atomic bomb was one application of Einstein's theories. He did much to open the eyes of science to the effects of gravity, mass and energy. So, if I propose to clone him I should also advocate cloning Neils Bohr who was his contemporary in Quantum Physics that Einstein said was all wrong and died trying to prove it.

I am not what you call a clone lover but in certain cases I would entertain cloning certain individuals like - Albert Einstein, John Lennon, Shakespeare. If the clones were to carry on the work of their originals, it might speed things ujp a little in their respective fields. Think of the possiblities, space travel would come sooner, a new music genre would appear and expressive poetry to accompany it.

kind regards,

In part of your comment I detect a certain amount of discontent with the status quo of government and big money. It is what democracy has morphed into. Congressmen and Senators are not doing what the people who elected them want them to do. Eventually, they will get trashed out in some kind of uprising in favor of having a plebescite anytime large sums are to be allocated for something. That would eliminate corruption almost entirely. Then your personality would probably change to a more happy and positve individual that is happy with the status quo.

Nevertheless, I recognize your point about creating clones that have super strength that could be used against peaceful citizens, etc. I only said lets clone Albert Einstein but you have extrapolated that to an army of robots. So, lets outlaw it but eventually it will be done, rest assured, because the means are there and the desire is there.

I think we should clone Marilyn Monroe many times. Then we would have a world with males and dumb blondes. What's the problem?

Maybe thats how nature made us. With a large amount of intelligence. Maybe thats what nature wants... Us to be the destruction of ourselves, and even the world.

I agree with Mr. "All Change is Good" as you so dubbed him (even though he made a specific point in saying that some change is bad).
Cloning was discovered, and scientists are not yet thinking of cloning Blackwater guards. Hmm... Maybe they agree with you. Maybe they think that Blackwater guard clones will be bad for the world like you do.
I think that scientists only make clones (of specific people/ organisms) for good causes. I think their judgement about the right and the wrong are about as finely tuned as yours. If you think that the leading pioneers and scientists are being unwise.... then we have a problemo, don't we?

Maybe you are right coz that you own opinion but the way i see it 2m it much of immitating god he said we should multiply and he gave us the way to do,therefore i say the worse is yet to come to our shores since we take god's responsibility to our hands who said we must make our own species heh?

I would like to have a twin and i dont think it willl create an imbalance in the world i think if you paid to get cloned they can clone you

My Dear Nisar,

Yes, we do have a problemo. Our problem is that your above is too idealistic. The corporations hiring the thousands of 4.0 GPA Harvard and Cambridge science graduates are run by other 4.0 GPA ivy league graduates with MBA, financing, and PR degrees. It is the latter who control the companies, not the former. Look at what happens. The PR departments write very nice ads. Example: Shell's magazines ads. People who want to believe that everything is rosy read those ads and go out and buy another car rather than take the bus or trolly. The ads tell them what they want to believe: Shell is working hard to save the planet, and all it's marine animals! Buying cars sets you free! Globalization is inevitable and beneficial! [Obama is a peace candidate.] [Sorry about that!! No politics on the clone forum!... er, we like to keep the two separate!]
Anyway, what we have is "economic development" as defined by the MBA, financing, and PR corporate executives. These are the big money people whose lobbyists and donations control most of the politicians of the world.

Did the military industrial complex and the big corporations really stop to consider whether the world would be a better place when they spent years developing and improving the atomic bomb and the missiles designed to carry it? Or did they think almost entirely about their own personal profits, their own life-styles? (The G-word, Greed, rises its ugly head here, I hope you will admit.) The US refused to join the Kyoto Accord to stop global warming, siding with Cheney's "The US lifestyle is not negotiable." Why was that, if not for Greed? The Greed of the Big Money men, and the greed of the inhabitants of the developed world, for cushy desk jobs, cheap Gap and WalMart products, and safety from retributive attacks by the people our leaders have attacked.

Why is the US starting wars, creating more bereaved and angry terrorists with every bomb it drops on villages and cities? Why does the US lead the world in consumption, pollution, and per-person creation of land-fill trash? Why do we elect Bushes and Obamas who clearly state during their campaigns that they will continue to attack countries "who hate us because we're free." ?
Is it not Greed? Greed for much, greed for more, greed for ease, personal comfort, without the effort of real and productive work? We want new toys, such as Hummers, flying cars, clones... there is no limit to what we want! And it seems the more we get, the more we want, and with less concern for the negative consequences.

The boys who want a hot babe, off the rack, any color hair and any disposition you want (dumb, smart, sex-maniac, or Madame Curie), want her quick, easy, and cheap. They don't want to have to do it the old way! They don't want to cut back on their video-game time and go out and try to MEET one! That's too much work! And fraught with risk and rejection. They might have to shine their shoes or put some real effort into it. They might have to clean up their act and give the girl what she wants, too. Real relationships require risk, growth, maturity... altogether too much effort. Let everyone just buy clones. The "Free Market" will provide, just as it always has. Advertising and marketing will help everyone see the light in the developing "romantic partner market." And the governments will subsidize and support it, because it "creates the high-tech jobs America/England/Italy needs."

Nisar, do you really believe that "scientists will only make clones for good causes," that they "have finely tuned judgement about what is right and wrong," and that they "will only make clones of specific people?" You should to realize that the people and entities funding and running the $Multi-trillion high-tech development and marketing of clones are and will be the same global corporations that brought us the wars in Viet Nam, Iraq, and (soon) Iran. The majority of people did not want those wars. The wars were for power and profit. So too will be clones.

There's a lot of money in manufacturing all those uniforms, boots, smart bombs, high-altitude drone attack planes, tactical battle-ground nuclear weapons, and the currently in-development neutron bombs (kills all humans and animals, leaves the buildings intact, no nuclear residue). There's a lot of money in manufacturing clones.

Some of the scientists who worked for years on the Manhattan project claim now that they thought and hoped the nuclear technology they were pioneering would be used only for peaceful projects.

Please consider your position, and the things you write on this forum, Nisar. Please do not delude yourself (and delude others who read this forum) into believing that the global corporations are investing billions in clone development and will content themselves to sell a mere few million clones to the wealthy few who can afford them. I know you are intrigued by the peaceful possibilities of clones. The novelty of it. Just as we love to read science fiction, the idea of clones stimulates our imaginations. But the reality of it is set in big business. First of all, most of those who want Marilyn Monroe or Angelina Jolie clones will not be able to afford the payments, because the price tags will be too high. Even if the prices could come down, and the corporations sold a billion "individual" clones, they would not be content with that. They would want to sell more, to the people and governments that could afford to buy them in high numbers, and with "improved features." Blackwater Security Inc., just as one example, would not buy just a few clones to help out in the typing pool. Nor would the Pentagon. ("Clone personnel will save young American lives on the battlefield.") (These clones will be manufactured at competitive labor costs in S.E. Asia, of course, to save the Army money. Thus, no "American Boys" i.e., your son, husband, or friend, will have to be slaughtered in the war against "World Terror."

Mercenaries and "security personnel" (Blackwater, etc.) are high risk - high pay - hard recruit positions. Would a government that invaded Iraq based on lies that Iraq did 911 and Iraq has WMD, hesitate long in its decision to purchase increasing numbers of "peacekeeping clones?" Would the rulers of the nation that led the world in nuclear proliferation (ICBM's, tactical small nukes, have (as you say, "finely tuned judgement about what is right and wrong," Nisar?

Is it you and I Nisar who will decide who to clone, how many to clone, why to clone, and what to do with the clones? Or will it be the military industrial complex, and it's parent company, the global corporations / global economy (Enron, Bechtel, Monsanto, Halaburton, etc.) who will have the money and political clout to make these decisions?

You may hope and believe that altruism, restraint, and true human values are driving the pursuit of cloning. But that is not the case. Profits (i.e. huge corporate profits) are the only thing that drives and motivates the massive research, development, and production costs. It certainly is not and will not be morality that drives it. Do you remember the mission of Star Trek's Enterprise? It was to "boldly go and seek out new life forms." But they were not to disturb or disrupt the natural evolution or any of the species they found.

At the risk of sounding glib, I have to say that the honour and ethics of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock were fictional and idealistic. There is no Federation of Planets, nor will there be one in the foreseeable future. No government, corporation, or any other entity has ever spent billions on R&D, and billions more on production facilities and highly-educated staff, for altruistic purposes. They have done it for personal profits. The quest of profit knows few limits, few restraints.

[If you wish a Star Trek analogy, the big global corporations are very close to the Borg.]

The corporate-dominated US gov't COULD lead the world in ending global warming, reversing the destruction of the rain forests, and solving the pollution of the seas. It could lead the world governments to nuclear disarmament. It could set the example by withdrawing from Iraq, Afghanistan, and all other countries and foreign bases and lead the UN to be what it was intended to be, a true institution of world peace, enforcing world peace. Bury the hatchet, break the chain of revenge, invasion, and terrorism-- by just STOPPING all aggression and support of puppet governments. And the us could end its subsidy of clone research & development. But these things have no chance of ever happening unless the People (Nisar, Hannum, and millions of others), raise up their voice and call for sanity and justice. Whatever the economic consequences... even if we all have to get real jobs, such as tailors, furniture makers, cheese makers, to de-populate and de-fund big capital and the global economy, and replace it with what worked, was sustainable: the local economy. Every town or city neighbourhood with its own shoemakers, smiths, and dressmakers, SMALL capitalist master craftsmen for SMALL economies, controlled by people, not big remote insulated capitalists. Capital is not wrong. Big capital is wrong. It is absentee and self-absorbed, it is not rooted to the community, it is a non-productive over-consuming parasite. Small shops and small farms created a diversity of pedestrian cultures, that for centuries had no need of big capital. Had no need for $82,000 smart bombs, 60 million gallon tanker ships, S.E. Asian child-labour sweatshops (everything was made locally, and with pride and culture). And they had no need of clones.

We must stand up and say NO to cloning, Nisar. The party must come to an end. You are wearing clothes and sitting on furniture that was made in Chinese sweatshops, my friend. The workers on the corp. plantation that grew your sugar, coffee, bananas, or who picked your Calif. or Texas fruit and vegetable items, had their land stolen by CIA-installed puppet leaders. They either got jobs on the big plantations growing aerial-spray poisoned GMO food, or migrated to the Macy's and Forever 21 sweatshop factories. Either way, they live in slums you can hardly imagine, each wall built from a different scrap material, each glass of water dipped from a polluted stream. They can't afford the bottled water you and I drink, Nisar. And they can't afford thinking about buying a clone.

The advantages (recreational clones (Marilyn Monroe) and fun clones ("I'd like to have a twin) are substantially outweighed by the disadvantages. The risk and liklihood that the clone market will include mercenary clones, security personnel clones, clone armies, super-clones, organ-harvest clones, slave clones, sex enclave slave, child prostitution traffic clones, and all the other deviations which we cannot yet imagine. These great risks outweigh the slight benefits. Without even considering the moral aspects of cloning in and of itself.

Cloning is not natural. Gandhi said, "Mankind intuitively knows the difference between a a good tool and a bad, a good invention and a bad." It is not enough to want something. We humans must to ask, "is it right? Is it necessary? Will it really make the world a better place?" And what is the drawback of banning clone development? A couple million guys having to abandon their dream of having a "no-problem hot girlfriend?" The disappointment of the few hundred thousand curious people who wonder what it would be like to have another Shakespeare or Napoleon? Are these such great losses, compared to the huge eventual harm that could result from the ability to create human life for profit? Do not answer these questions too quickly, my friend. Technology is a two-edged sword. It can give certain benefits to mankind, but taken too far it can be very harmful.
Regards, hannum7

P.S. Those who think Napoleon's clone would be another Napoleon should read the cover story in Time Magazine, Jan. 18, Entitled "Why your DNA is not your Destiny." Clones would develop their own personalities, and that is the main reason why their almost inevitable exploitation would be wrong.

Wow that was a long winded comment. I like your explanation of corporate-run government. Maybe we can sue the Republican party for failing to govern. They are supposed to vote on laws but all they do is obstruct the process.

Anyway, I thought we should only clone leaders in their fields like Einstein, John Lennon, Shakespeare, etc. Then we could move forward in science to nice music and good lyrics. Of course, that assumes that the clones are so motivated which they should be because humans generally gravitate toward the things they like and do best.

regards,

How about another "you" (clone in millions)that will be a positive cloning because, you look to me a perfect and honest personality, and sure you would be the life saver and preserver of the good of human nature!!!!
your good clone will save the civilization whenever evil strike or manipulate the good conventions of the human race. Cloning of you will be a right approach of the positive change. In this reference All change is Good.

Good luck

Dear Hannum7

How about another "you" (clone in millions)that will be a positive cloning because, you look to me a perfect and honest personality, and sure you would be the life saver and preserver of the good of human nature!!!!
your good clone will save the civilization whenever evil strike or manipulate the good conventions of the human race. Cloning of you will be a right approach of the positive change. In this reference All change is Good.

Good luck