An early Luddite memo:

[troysvihl]

From: Alliance of Concerned Shamans To:Chief Who Sits on Big Rock and has Mighty Club Subject: Fire. Fire bad. Maybe fire good, but no one know. Since no one know, best not to make fire. That way, we not find out, which is good. Fire anger gods. Angry gods mean bad hunts and no babies. We no want no babies. Repeat: Fire bad. People make fire too fast. Only five year ago, no fire. Last year, sparks. Now, fire. No one consult us first. No one ask gods. People just bang rocks, make sparks. We upset. We know gods upset, because gods talk to us -- not to people. So no more make fire! Fire bad. People burned. What if someone make big-big fire, burn down woods? Then animals die, we no eat animals, we die. Fire bad. Some say fire good. They stupid. If fire good, gods would have given us fire. Gods no give us fire, so, fire bad. D'uh! Stupid people who say fire good should be burned with fire! Hah! That will teach them. We shamans all say:Fire bad. You mess with fire, you make gods angry. Fire bad for women and babies and cute little bunnies. So, Chief, please: Hit people who mess with fire with big club.

Now I wonder who this sounds like?

[Nuclear Krusader]

I don't know if your are referring to someone in particular, but I know a lot of people like those.

People who are affraid to grow, to change, to be. People who keeps others from advancing in life just because of their stupid fears.

[troysvihl]

Not one person in particular. A group of people. Namely, those technophobes that are against genetic research. You can replace the word "fire" in that memo with, say, the word "cloning", and you pretty much have the modern verion of their arguement.

How little things change. lol.

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by troysvihl You can replace the word "fire" in that memo with, say, the word "cloning", and you pretty much have the modern verion of their arguement. How little things change. lol.

hmmm...i have to respond to this.

I have 2 major issues with cloning.

The first is a moral issue, I won't bore you with those as your moral belief system may not be the same as mine and those arguments, generally, will not sway anyone outside of that group.

The second is a very secular issue. One of the conclusions of cloning is the making humans (for any number of uses, the most talked about is the use of clones as living organ banks). My very serious concerns with that are the rights of those made in the cloning process. The keys question is:

Do these clones have rights?

For all intents and purposes they are human beings (they do, in fact, have the same genome as another human being). Humans have the rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" (also see the United States . How can we as a society strip them (or allow them to be stripped) of those most basic & precious of human rights? If we do decide that we can, what prevents those same standards from being applied to other humans and then strip them of their rights? For examples look at any of history's many ethnic cleansings (Jews, Croats, Serbs, Muslims, Armenians, Australian aboroginies, etc ad nauseum) and how the laws (or lack thereof) have been twisted to serve extremely dark motives.

This issue needs to be fully addressed and resolved or we very well risk the willful development of a legal second class of citizens. If standing up for the rights of people makes me a Luddite, I am proud to be counted amongst their number.

[troysvihl]

It sounds as if you have 2 major issues with what to do with the PRODUCTS of cloning, and not the process of cloning itself.

[mbossman2]

The 2 are inextricably intertwined. If you have the technology, it will be used, and what to do with the by-products of the process must be addressed.

While I am not a proponent of governement intervention in a lot of things, this is an area (the protection of the lives of your citizens) that the government of the people should be involved.

[doctorgonzo]

Cloning to produce stem cells = okay by me.

Cloning to produce humans = very dangerous mistake.

[Karel]

I think it is pre-relevant to discuss the possible products and consequenses of cloning, if you ever want to engage in discussing the possible processes that would precede them...

Using mbossman2's objections (justified in my opinion) this would mean: if society (I'm sorry troysvihl - I know this word ticks you off) should decide that cloned human individuals are a no-no, then where's the point in discussing the process?

You might be tempted to suggest that cloning technology in general does not necessarily have to lead to the cloning of humans. I disagree. Any technology will, eventually, go the whole 9 yards.

On another (much underestimated) forum, people are discussing the existence of the human soul. I wonder, if you think the human soul exists, would you attribute the same to a cloned person?