Cloning Pets

[ThePreserver]

A few people (with lots of spare cash) have cloned their pets; one woman for her dog, for around $50,000. It's going to become a more common occurrence, so why not discuss it? I will mention that I wouldn't STOP anyone from cloning their pets, because that's not my place or my decision. As much as I would love to have my dog or cat be "alive" here with me, I think 1) I would feel too freaked out about having a clone, since it wouldn't actually be MY pet, only a clone... and 2) I feel as though I would be disrespecting their lives and taking them for granted. 3) I would feel guilty for not adopting a dog from a shelter who was about to be put down when I easily could have as an alternative (although to me that, too, feels like replacement which is why I cannot adopt a dog or cat without them winding up on our doorstep [which happens very often.]) How do you feel about it? How would it affect a child if a pet were to essentially "not die?"

[Xei]

This will start becoming a huge issue pretty soon. There are no clear laws about genetic manipulation of pets. We can make glow in the dark bunnies now, by inserting bio luminescence genes. It doesn't do the animal any harm. Should we? The whole area invites moral weirdness. It's way beyond our intuition of what's right and wrong (and what is right and wrong other than an intuition?). As long as it's safe I guess you're at liberty to clone an old pet... I don't think I would, because I would confuse it with the old one. And that's... freaky. It's not 'wrong' but it certainly bends your mind around.

[♥Mark]

it doesn't do the animal any harm. Should we? YESz

[Xei]

Oh and naturally it gets even weirder when we start considering humans. Cloning humans is illegal, but it wasn't really made so for any clear moral reason; it was simply done for the reason of 'WTF'. Our sense of morality wasn't built to cope with situations like these, and it can't really be extended to them. We just get weirded out by our failure to make any sense out of it, largely I think because that rabbit hole leads straight to the realisation that morality in more prosaic situations is just as independent from the real world, so we basically respond with a kneejerk 'lolnope' to avoid thinking further about the issue.

[DrunkenArse]

We can make glow in the dark bunnies now, by inserting bio luminescence genes. This is already happening with fish for aquariums. They look tacky as hell. If we can't ban it on the grounds of bio-ethics then I'm going to hold out hopes for banning it on the grounds of good taste.

[Photolysis]

Having a pet with the same genes isn't quite the same as having a pet that never dies. It's not going to be the same because the memories and environment will be different, though of course it may behave similarly due to having the same genetic predispositions towards certain behaviours. That actual premise where cloning to "revive" someone who has died (animal or human) is used in an Arnie film actually. I don't think cloning a pet is wrong ethically. I'm not sure about the kinds of ethical dilemmas presented if it were theoretically possible to transfer memories into the cloned body however, though I know I wouldn't want to undergo such a process.

[Xei]

I don't think cloning a pet is wrong ethically. I'm not sure about the kinds of ethical dilemmas presented if it were theoretically possible to transfer memories into the cloned body however, though I know I wouldn't want to undergo such a process. Well at this point you start approaching a philosophical black hole. If you duplicate a brain, in what sense is it a new individual? If cloning is out of the ballpark of moral intuition then this is on another planet; we don't even have any idea about what the reality is that we're dealing with, and it starts creating paradoxes in metaphysical ideas of self. I predict many lawyers will go insane in the 21st century.

[ThePreserver]

My friend just said that she would clone her dog in a heartbeat... which has shifted my "view" of her ideas a bit. I think Xei put it best; we can't physically cope with the weirdness of these ideas. I find it objectionable on a "freakiness" factor. This is my problem with many futurist ideas; they are too freaky for me to accept. I get so anxious about these things >.< I predict many lawyers will go insane in the 21st century. This.

[Photolysis]

Well at this point you start approaching a philosophical black hole. If you duplicate a brain, in what sense is it a new individual? If cloning is out of the ballpark of moral intuition then this is on another planet; we don't even have any idea about what the reality is that we're dealing with, and it starts creating paradoxes in metaphysical ideas of self. I predict many lawyers will go insane in the 21st century. It depends how deeply you consider the nature of identity I'd say. Aside from the stigma of someone being a clone which would inevitably occur (seeing how GM organisms don't exactly get the best press) or it just being 'wrong', I think a lot of people who only look at the issue superficially would be quite accepting of it because it could 'save' people from 'dying' of otherwise incurable conditions. As for myself, I've given a lot of thought on the matter of identity and I don't see it as being me, even if the result would be no different to anyone else. But yes, it's extremely difficult to approach such a topic. I wouldn't be surprised if it does actually come up in the future, so perhaps it's good to have a head start!

[Xei]

What's really weird is when you consider exact duplicates and how precisely they would work. I imagine you agree that your consciousness is a product of your brain function. It does not matter that your brain is made of protein, fat, ions, water, etcetera (especially as there is a constant flow of this material into and out of your body). So, if you replaced each neuron with a silicon chip that worked in exactly the same way as the neuron (one by one if you want), you don't anticipate your consciousness being affected. But then what if instead, you replaced each neuron with two silicon chips each time, so that eventually you have two distinct brains, which can then be separated. Which one are you?

[ThePreserver]

What's really weird is when you consider exact duplicates and how precisely they would work. I imagine you agree that your consciousness is a product of your brain function. It does not matter that your brain is made of protein, fat, ions, water, etcetera (especially as there is a constant flow of this material into and out of your body). So, if you replaced each neuron with a silicon chip that worked in exactly the same way as the neuron (one by one if you want), you don't anticipate your consciousness being affected. But then what if instead, you replaced each neuron with two silicon chips each time, so that eventually you have two distinct brains, which can then be separated. Which one are you? Ways to avoid this conundrum: Not attempting to replace your brain at all!

[tommo]

This is already happening with fish for aquariums. They look tacky as hell. If we can't ban it on the grounds of bio-ethics then I'm going to hold out hopes for banning it on the grounds of good taste. I always thought that would look cool. You could have a glowing fish aquarium next to your bed. Nice, calm blue light. What's wrong with that? Also, I don't think these ideas are too far out of our realm of moral judgement. You just have to think about what it actually is. You're just using a set of identical genes basically. Choosing a sperm which is not going to produce a sick human is obviously a good thing, anyone who has qualms with that is guaranteed to be religious. What if, somehow, you chose a sperm to implant which was exactly the same as a previous human? Would that be, even though it's the same as cloning, "wrong" too? I wouldn't clone my dog. At least, I probably wouldn't, thinking about it now. But who knows when he's gone what I would want. I just think there is some rationality it letting things go. Whether that be objects or living organisms. Also, the only problem I can see with cloning a human, and why it is different from cloning another animal is that humans can talk. The clone would eventually find out that it is a clone. How would that make him or her feel?

[ThePreserver]

Also, the only problem I can see with cloning a human, and why it is different from cloning another animal is that humans can talk. The clone would eventually find out that it is a clone. How would that make him or her feel? Said clone finds out, murders you, and attempts to usurp your place. How does that make you feel? (I think it would make ME feel dead.)

[Xei]

Of course, it's always important to bear in mind that clones do exist already...

[ThePreserver]

Yes, but those clones have "existed" since birth, simultaneously, which means they each have an opportunity to experience life and development at the same time! And it's less creepy, because we're used to them. (in most cultures.)

[Puffin]

The only reason we screw around with genetics and spend thousands of dollars cloning things is sentiment. That's not a good enough reason. That, or "just to see how far things can go".

[tommo]

Said clone finds out, murders you, and attempts to usurp your place. How does that make you feel? (I think it would make ME feel dead.) I thought we were assuming the original person was dead already.

[ThePreserver]

I thought we were assuming the original person was dead already. Nope. Simultaneousness. There's really no "point" to cloning yourself in the long run unless you are harvesting your own organs (and that's just creepy.) What purpose are you serving? taking more food away from starving people?

[Original Poster]

Seems a little fucked up to me that we have tons of cats and dogs put to death every day in this country because they couldn't find a home, but rather than save some poor animal's life people would rather just clone their old one.

[Sornaensis]

I know, right? Surely we could at least donate those abandoned animals to starving people in third world countries.

[Original Poster]

I'm pretty sure even a broken hearted child would rather know they helped an animal that would otherwise die rather than just get their own pet back. Even if they don't understand what's going on, when they think back on it as adults they'd feel much better about the situation. But you know, parents hate seeing their kids cry and as long as the kids don't know millions of pets are euthanized every day, they won't care. Isn't the death of a pet like a rite of passage though? You gotta learn that death isn't something that only happens to people you don't care about.

[Arra]

Every person and pet should be cloned, and those clones should be used as slaves and test subjects. Their internal organs can be implanted into their corresponding people whenever one fails. I'd personally like a glowing kitten.

[Original Poster]

I want a dog that can bark at a certain frequency to cause women to orgasm instantly

[Darkmatters]

I want a woman who orgasms at the right frequency to make dogs bark..

[Spartiate]

What's really weird is when you consider exact duplicates and how precisely they would work. I imagine you agree that your consciousness is a product of your brain function. It does not matter that your brain is made of protein, fat, ions, water, etcetera (especially as there is a constant flow of this material into and out of your body). So, if you replaced each neuron with a silicon chip that worked in exactly the same way as the neuron (one by one if you want), you don't anticipate your consciousness being affected. But then what if instead, you replaced each neuron with two silicon chips each time, so that eventually you have two distinct brains, which can then be separated. Which one are you? This reminds me of people who have undergone a hemispherectomy. Many of them have regained significant cognitive functions with essentially half a brain. This means that if you could hypothetically separate a healthy person's brain and place one of the halves into another body, you'd end up with two distinct conscious entities...