🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jevan Pipitone" <jp@jevan1.com> wrote in message 
news:4fb8b8a1$0$31820$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
>I came across the issue of whether dna cloning is ethical, after the news 
>mentioned someone cloned a dog 3 times.
>
> It's possibly not such a good idea to clone animals or humans when the 
> original is still going to live on. After all, how would you know which 
> one was which, it seems unfair to take away that originality, even 
> identical twins have differences in their dna.
>
> However perhaps if a human was going to die soon of an incurable 
> condition, it might be alright to clone them (especially if they were 
> someone like einstein). The fact that the original wasn't going to live 
> anymore, might make it alright/ethically fine to clone them, perhaps.
>
> What do you think?
>

# Cloning is a reversion to asexual reproduction, but what exactly is the 
point of it, apart from the fact that human research can do it?
   Do species which use sexual reproduction have an advantage over the 
asexual type?
   Maybe when environmental changes are occurring rapidly, as they can 
potentially adapt faster.
   One exception might be the species Homo Sapiens, as Nature has produced 
an animal with an over-large brain, coupled with primitive instincts - 
surely a recipe for disaster?  Especially if it dogmatically insists on 
letting its instinct of Complacency ignore rational ecological Prudence.
   It no longer adapts to change (if it even recognises it), but wants 
Nature to do the adapting.
   The Mad Ape?
   And the species has now reached plague proportions....