Cloning Pets

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?"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xei

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

---

YESz

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

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.

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 >.<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I predict many lawyers will go insane in the 21st century.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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!

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Ways to avoid this conundrum: Not attempting to replace your brain at all! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

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.)

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

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/film/gf/twins-gf.jpg

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.)

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

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?

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.

I know, right?

Surely we could at least donate those abandoned animals to starving people in third world countries.

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.

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.
http://blog.united-academics.org/wp-...ing-kitten.jpg

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Wow, that's a tricky question alright. But on the plus side I have another TV reference that deals with a very similar thing in the form of a Star Trek episode! Even if strictly speaking it makes no sense because of the conservation of energy and all that.

It's tempting to simply postulate that half of those replacement silicon neurons would be redundant and therefore not actually contributing anything - it would certainly make answering the question much easier if that were true - but that would be intellectually lazy of me since I can't think of any particularly convincing argument why this should be the case. Not to mention that even if this were true, how could anyone determine which ones are redundant and so remove those?

What's particularly vexing about this example is that other identity thought experiments don't do much to help. For example, take the Ship of Theseus. If I replace one plank in the hull with two planks, then either they combined take up the same space as the gap left by the original, or one plank can be removed because it's redundant and not actually fulfilling any function. I don't think I've come across any other examples where one part could be replaced with two parts where both carry out the exact same function equally, and then split apart later to create two objects with the same properties as the original.

I think my answer to this at the moment would be that it depends on how the splitting process is achieved. If I replace every neuron in your brain individually with two chips, then I would suggest that you are still you. If I come along later and take half of these out whilst still maintaining the original form of the brain, you would still be you, and creating another brain out of these removed parts would be the same as creating a biological clone. Or alternatively, if I take your brain out completely and break it down into two piles and then make them into two copies of your brain, this would involve destroying the original consciousness and creating two new ones. The continuity of existence of an object is important here.

Thought-provoking stuff. I need a drink now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

If the original brain is destroyed, then you are neither of them.

Photolysis: actually I think there's no way out of it. It totally destroys the concept of self. It's a beautifully infuriating paradox, largely because the damn thing is actually real. Patently my self does exist; in fact it's the only thing in the world I am sure of! And yet it can't.

I don't actually think your solution addresses the issue; if you analyse the wording it's actually nonsensical. The sentence, 'if I come along later and take half of these out whilst still maintaining the original form of the brain, you would still be you' assumes the existence of the referent; what are you referring to by 'you'? Brain A or brain B? And 'and creating another brain out of these removed parts' has the same problem; you refer to 'the other brain', but the whole problem is that you can't specify if that was brain A or brain B. The two brains will go on to live different lives, and there was perfect symmetry in their formation. Which is you? The former implies that we must choose, the latter implies that we cannot. There is no way out.

The thing about continuity also hides problems underneath. What is exactly meant by continuity? We've already conceded that the material cannot itself be important. What does destroying and then recreating mean? It doesn't actually mean destroying, because if you did that, you would have no way of 'causing' a new brain into existence. In fact the brain is as embodied in physical reality as ever before; it's stored in whatever data storage device you use in the interim. So there is as much a continuous causal link, ion one pushing ion two pushing ion three, as there is in ion one pushing ion two pushing nanobot pushing electron pushing transistor pushing electron pushing nanobot pushing ion three.

As to the Ship of Theseus, I think that can be clarified further. I don't think there's actually a distinction between these problems and the problem we're currently considering. We could for instance consider the ontological status of a computer program, which could be duplicated in the same way, giving the same problems of identity. But the thing is that these problems can be solved, if we just say that the ontological status of an object is just the embodiment of that concept in our brain. A ship isn't 'real', in the sense that fundamentally it's just an array of separate atoms. The concept of a ship as a singular object is just a mental construct. The duplication of the ship isn't 'real' in the atomic sense, it's just that the result is two objects which both create that concept of a ship in our brains. There's no paradox there. But of course, this falls apart when you consider your own consciousness. It doesn't make sense of consciousness to just be something in your consciousness, that's cyclical.

Sornaensis: doesn't work, I address that in the first bit. Your brain is constantly being 'destroyed'. Molecules are constantly entering your body and replacing those in your brain, which exit it. The actual matter of your brain is constantly changing. If you gradually replace each neuron with a functionally equivalent silicon chip, there is no difference. If you concede that your consciousness isn't constantly changing in normal circumstances, you are forced to concede that it won't change when you replace it with silicon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Sornaensis: doesn't work, I address that in the first bit. Your brain is constantly being 'destroyed'. Molecules are constantly entering your body and replacing those in your brain, which exit it. The actual matter of your brain is constantly changing. If you gradually replace each neuron with a functionally equivalent silicon chip, there is no difference. If you concede that your consciousness isn't constantly changing in normal circumstances, you are forced to concede that it won't change when you replace it with silicon.

---

Yea but that process is just a part of the pattern that is 'You'. If you take a brain in a given state and replace it with two identical networks, destroying the original, you're left with two daughter 'copies' which go on to become their own defined patterns.

All this illustrates is that we have no clue what consciousness really is, or how it works. The daughter copies would be identical, but then immediately change, but this happens to the original anyway, so the question is what is the boundary between one consciousness and another? I would say that because you've split the original consciousness pattern into two identical copies of the original, and destroyed the original, you've ended that pattern, and left two NEW consciousnesses, which are distinct because they exist independent of the original, which was 'bound' to that brain, as far as we know. The fact that they exist in different places in the universe makes them different enough to be considered totally separate. They don't rely on each other to exist, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

A ship isn't 'real', in the sense that fundamentally it's just an array of separate atoms. The concept of a ship as a singular object is just a mental construct. The duplication of the ship isn't 'real' in the atomic sense, it's just that the result is two objects which both create that concept of a ship in our brains. There's no paradox there. But of course, this falls apart when you consider your own consciousness. It doesn't make sense of consciousness to just be something in your consciousness, that's cyclical.

---

I think your question of "which consciousness are you?" needs a definition of "you". I think identity is as much of a mental construct as is any other object that's fundamentally an array of separate atoms. Consciousness is fundamentally an array of natural processes, and although the more objective nature of our unique physical structures influence it, I don't believe our consciousnesses have inherent identities that aren't developed mental constructs.

Indeed, I'm being very lax at the moment. I'm just playing with mental concepts and showing they don't make any sense.

It's perfectly possible that, before the process, 'you' are 'one consciousness', and afterwards, that consciousness turns into two consciousnesses, and you simply experience 'one route or the other', very like the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The protest is basically, 'how can a singular thing turn into two singular things?'; the counter protest is, 'why not?'. This stuff is ridiculously beyond the realm of human knowledge and intuition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sornaensis

I would say that because you've split the original consciousness pattern into two identical copies of the original, and destroyed the original, you've ended that pattern, and left two NEW consciousnesses

---

I don't understand how this is qualitatively different from just making one, though. Why isn't that a 'new consciousness'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

We can make glow in the dark bunnies now, by inserting bio luminescence genes.

---

Heh. Nah. Why do that? Don't go playing god................

YES DO IT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't understand how this is qualitatively different from just making one, though. Why isn't that a 'new consciousness'?

---

As I said, this function is part of the pattern. If you duplicate the pattern itself, i.e. consciousness by transferring it to a totally new medium, even if they are literally identical, you have created a new pattern that exists somewhere else in the universe. If, however, you copied the pattern, moved it to an exactly identical medium that took up the exact same space as the original, thereby destroying the original, and done this all simultaneously, you'd have the same consciousness. But the fact that they exist in two different places is enough to make them separate.

So if one by one I replaced each neuron with a silicon chip... slightly left of centre of the original neuron... that means the resulting consciousness is new?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So if one by one I replaced each neuron with a silicon chip... slightly left of centre of the original neuron... that means the resulting consciousness is new?

---

Of course.

I find that extremely tenuous. When other functional units of the brain are replaced by biological processes, they don't do it in exactly the same location.

Consciousness is something that's always new. Identity is something that's ever changing too. The problem is that something permanent that can be said to be duplicated, destroyed, or replaced is actually very hard to pin down.

I don't see any logical flaws in the creation of multiple people from one. From an outside perspective there would be more than one of you. From an internal perspective, there is just one of you. If you were to die, but you left an exact copy of yourself, with all your memories behind, then for all practical purposes to everyone else, that copy is still you. The real danger in this, is that 'you' the being that is sensing everything at this moment could be forever destroyed and no one would ever know.

Ideally you want to keep as much continuity as possible to ensure that you are actually going to survive. Any sudden splits is highly risky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

From an internal perspective, there is just one of you.

---

Which one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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...

---

That's only because most people don't use the left side of their brain all that much.

And, from wiki "Generally, the greater the intellectual capacity of the patient prior to surgery, the greater the decline in function."
You can't remove half a person's brain and expect them to go back to normal.
Significant cognitive function is relative. And the only reports I've heard are just showing that they lose a lot less abilities than you'd think they would.
And let's face it, living a "normal life" is not too taxing on the intellect. A trained monkey could to 90% of the jobs that humans do. A trained monkey besides a human I mean.

However I do agree it would be interesting to see if both halves retained their ego. I suppose it would help answer whether the ego is just retained in these half-brained people due to continuation of experience.

EDIT: Just read the next page, seems a lot of people are mentioning continuity lol

Quote:

---

The concept of a ship as a singular object is just a mental construct. The duplication of the ship isn't 'real' in the atomic sense, it's just that the result is two objects which both create that concept of a ship in our brains. There's no paradox there. But of course, this falls apart when you consider your own consciousness. It doesn't make sense of consciousness to just be something in your consciousness, that's cyclical.

---

What if you created the "ship" atoms in the same formation?

Consciousness is not just something in your consciousness. There is a physical basis for it.
Consciousness arises from that, the brain assumes there is a "separate" "you" in there somewhere and it creates this concept of consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

That's only because most people don't use the left side of their brain all that much.

---

Firstly, what? Secondly... what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Which one?

---

From both, but each one would experience things from only their own perspective. From your own perspective there can only ever be one of you, but from other peoples perspective there can be multiples of you.

Unless we find a way to make copies of people and then recombine their memories and stuff back into one person, which would be kind of interesting.

I don't get how you can answer the question 'which one' with 'both'..? You say subjectively there is only one of you. Prior to the split obviously you just experience the inputs to that brain. But afterwards, which brain do you, subjectively, experience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Firstly, what? Secondly... what?

---

It was half a joke. I just mean most people don't use logic all that much.

Baring some really strange unforeseen side effect in which you find yourself as both at the same time, which is very unlikely, you will experience things as one or the other. I suppose it is entirely random which one you would experience being. There is no way to know unless you did it, and then only you would know. Since no one else could tell the difference, and the other you would be experiencing the same thing but in the other body.

lulwut?
It is not random. "You" would be the original one. The other one would be exactly the same, until it splits and has different experiences (experience meaning even something simple like viewing the room from a different angle at the second of splitting). Whereas you would have a complete continuation of experience, your view wouldn't shift at all.
The other one would feel exactly the same as you and everything, at least for a while, but that version of you would know it was not the original you.

The only problem there is in thinking about this is when people assume that the ego (the "you" part) is somehow separate and it would switch between the two brain randomly or you could somehow experience both or some stupid shit like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Baring some really strange unforeseen side effect in which you find yourself as both at the same time, which is very unlikely, you will experience things as one or the other. I suppose it is entirely random which one you would experience being. There is no way to know unless you did it, and then only you would know. Since no one else could tell the difference, and the other you would be experiencing the same thing but in the other body.

---

Wasn't that the premise of The Sixth Day?

Spoiler for spoiler:

The clone believed he was the original.