[elipsis]

Overpopulation is a serious problem, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad if real and genuine efforts were made to curb Western overconsumption.

Technology could feed everyone in the world right now, make no mistake about it. And guess what happens when everyone has enough to eat? They become more educated, the country industrialises and, eventually, population growth drops drastically. Compare the population growth statistics between Africa, India and just about any Western country. Australia has zero population growth, or very close to it, when you factor out immigration.

Cloning is not a major threat as far as overpopulation is concerned, but it does raise a lot of other issues. Address Third World poverty and ignorance, and you WILL address the population problem.

 

[elipsis]

Quote:

Originally posted by andrzejpw I fail to see the positive here. So what you're saying we shouldn't accept a lost loved one, we should try to "fix" them? Seriously? What do you tell the clone? "Well, we created you to replace our lost daughter. You're not yourself, you're really her." Bone marrow transplants? So, what happens after the transplant goes through? Do you kill the clone? I really fear the world that you describe. This really seems like a page out of "Brave New World."

This is an overly simplified view of cloning. Cloning technology need not only be used to grow whole new people, it can also aid in lifesaving medical procedures where an exact genetic match for an organ, skin graft or bone marrow is needed. You don't need to grow a whole new person for that.

Unfortunately, when the media gets a hold of sensationalistic stuff like this, you get too many people going off half-cocked about the "extreme danger" of the new technology.

 

[mikeg]

Quote:

Originally posted by andrzejpw I fail to see the positive here. So what you're saying we shouldn't accept a lost loved one, we should try to "fix" them? Seriously? What do you tell the clone? "Well, we created you to replace our lost daughter. You're not yourself, you're really her." Bone marrow transplants? So, what happens after the transplant goes through? Do you kill the clone? I really fear the world that you describe. This really seems like a page out of "Brave New World."

I realize that this is a tough subject, it conflicts with religous, cultural, and all kinds of other beliefs. But, mercifully in our wonderful USA differences of opinion are tolerated, and in this head-fi group they are also usually respected. I've read more than once that parents who lost an infant would willingly use DNA info from their beloved infant to duplicate him/her. I feel that this choice is rightfully these parent's and that others should not prevent them from satisfying their deep need. As for the resulting cloned child, it is a child just like any other child, and will be cherished as such. As for what you tell this child when they grow up, you tell the child that they were wanted and are loved. Same as what you tell any other child. As far as having a cloned child in order to obtain bone marrow to save another suffering child, it's already been done many times, but by means other than cloning. In these situations it was a gamble that the bone marrow would match. As for the cloned child, they are to be loved in the same manner as ones other children. Please try to remember that a child, once born, is a human child to be loved. I see no difference between children obtained through intercourse, artificial insemination, or cloning.

 

[kelly]

I really don't get the confusion here, seriously. Ford rolls off thousands of the exact same model of car. Does this mean they're the same car? No, they're just built to the same specification. It's a new object, not a reference to an object.

What if you had a kid that happened to look like the kid you lost by randomi occurrence? Would it be wrong somehow if your second kid had the same facial features, hair and eye color? It's a different person, regardless. Genetics are ONLY a blueprint, the physical manufactured child is a completely new entity regardless of the mold.

I don't really understand why there are religious, moral or ethical issues about this. If the child has the same rights as any other child, what does it matter how his or her genetics were selected?

And yes, I'm one of the people who would, if I could, choose to have a child who by design was born without disease or predisposition to disease. And you guys think there's some moral imperative NOT to???

 

[x1lexure]

Yes Mark you should. I'd like to to see some studies on it atleast. You said things but never backed them up with anything.

 

[elipsis]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly a different person, regardless. Genetics are ONLY a blueprint, the physical manufactured child is a completely new entity regardless of the mold.

Also, identical twins are genetically the same person. No one complains about that or would even begin to suggest that they are somehow less than unique.

 

[elipsis]

Quote:

Originally posted by x1lexure Yes Mark you should. I'd like to to see some studies on it atleast. You said things but never backed them up with anything.

http://www.overpopulation.org/

 

[markl]

I want to preface by saying I respect everyone's opinion on this issue and I'm only trying to spur further discussion...

In general, the only people I see that poo-poo overpopulation tend to be religious right-wingers who seem to feel that God would not allow us to do anything that might endanger our continued survival. This is ludicrous and dangerous thinking.
(Also, religions have an inherent interest in encouraging their rank and file to reproduce so they have more practicioners and sources of funds. How will the Catholic Church, as an example, handle the issue of over-population? IMO, they are not equipped to provide answers to this problem-- they oppose birth control, family planning and abortion.)

Quote:

Address Third World poverty and ignorance, and you WILL address the population problem.

Address Third World poverty and you insure the population problem will only get worse. The reason it's so bad in the West is that thanks to modern technology, more children survive the birthing process and early childhood. In the future, all countries will have to have policies like the Chinese have now that limits the number of children a couple can have. It's inevitable.

What happens when a species overbreeds beyond the ability of its resources to survive? Mass famine and death.

Quote:

I've read more than once that parents who lost an infant would willingly use DNA info from their beloved infant to duplicate him/her. I feel that this choice is rightfully these parent's and that others should not prevent them from satisfying their deep need.

I agree that in a free society we have no real way of preventing couples from doing just this. I still question the impact of being a clone on the clone itself and the ethics of bringing a clone into existence.

Quote:

As for the resulting cloned child, it is a child just like any other child, and will be cherished as such.

By the parents, maybe. What about the rest of the world?
Also, what's to stop the megalomaniacal multi-millionaire from creating an exact copy of himself? Creating a clone of oneself is inherently an egotistical act. What about politicians, dictators creating the perfect replacement? What happens to my sense of identity and integrity when i know that I've been selectively breed to fulfill a certain role and replace a parent?

Quote:

I really don't get the confusion here, seriously. Ford rolls off thousands of the exact same model of car. Does this mean they're the same car? No, they're just built to the same specification. It's a new object, not a reference to an object.

In terms of the nature vs. nurture debate, they used to argue that people were born as "blank slates". But now, they've come to realize that nature plays a much more significant role in shaping who we are. Personality is largely determined by our biology and genetics.

Quote:

I don't really understand why there are religious, moral or ethical issues about this. If the child has the same rights as any other child, what does it matter how his or her genetics were selected?

In the abstract, yes. Of course he/she would be a regular human being. The question is-- how will other human beings react to the clone and treat the clone? I suspect they will not be kind.

Quote:

Also, identical twins are genetically the same person. No one complains about that or would even begin to suggest that they are somehow less than unique.

I think the issue of twins is totally different. They were not "manufactured" to be identical to an existing person, they were an accident of nature and totally unique from their parents.

Mark

 

[elipsis]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Address Third World poverty and you insure the population problem will only get worse. The reason it's so bad in the West is that thanks to modern technology, more children survive the birthing process and early childhood. In the future, all countries will have to have policies like the Chinese have now that limits the number of children a couple can have. It's inevitable. What happens when a species overbreeds beyond the ability of its resources to survive? Mass famine and death.

Have you ever even made a cursory glance toward the literature on this?

I'm sorry, but you are very, very wrong. ALL of the literature supports the notion that population growth is INVERSELY related to standard of living.

Of course, I wouldn't make a sweeping statement like this without having the literature to back me up:

http://www.riverdeep.net/current/200...pulation.jhtml

"A recent United Nations' report predicts that by 2050, the world's population will reach about 9.3 billion, with most of the population growth occurring in Asia and Africa.

While population growth in industrialized countries such as the United States has essentially stopped, growth in less developed countries such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America continues to grow."

"A population grows when its births outnumber its deaths. Women in less developed countries average 3.6 children each, compared with only 1.6 children in more developed countries. In Europe, the population is actually declining because there are fewer births each year than deaths"

Want more? OK!

http://www.unfpa.org/population/demogra.htm

"Developing countries compared to industrialized countries:
Population growth rates vary greatly among regions and even among countries within the same region. Virtually all population growth is in developing countries. Meanwhile, natural population growth has slowed or stopped in Europe, North America and Japan."

 

[markl]

ellipsis,
Admitedly I haven't gone to those sites and read up on what they have to say. We do seem to agree that overpopulation is a problem, though.

That said, isn't it entrenched ideas about family backed by religious and cultural heritage that is at the core of population booms in the Third World? It's only in Protestant-dominated cultures/societies where population is on the decline. It seems to me you are assuming that providing the Third World with prosperity will change their basic attitudes/traditions/beliefs toward life and reduce population. The argument assumes that if you provide them with wealth, they will behave just as we do. I'm not sure I go along with that. Just look at the wealthy Arab nations like Saudi Arabia. Do they automatically embrace Western notions? Heck no...

Mark

 

[elipsis]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl ellipsis, Admitedly I haven't gone to those sites and read up on what they have to say. We do seem to agree that overpopulation is a problem, though. That said, isn't it entrenched ideas about family backed by religious and cultural heritage that is at the core of population booms in the Third World? It's only in Protestant-dominated cultures/societies where population is on the decline.

There's no reason to believe that. Population is booming in the vast majority of third world countries, from Islamic Northern Africa to India, which is mostly Hindu, to Buddhist Southeast Asia. To assume that all of these widely divergent cultures share an ideal of prosperity through enormous families is culturally conceited in the extreme.

Population is on the decline only in Protestant-dominated cultures? Check out the population statistics for Italy sometime, a country almost entirely dominated by Catholicism, which doesn't allow contraception, abortion or even masturbation. They have NEGATIVE population growth that's even more drastic than their Protestant neighbours.

Quote:

Originally posted by markl It seems to me you are assuming that providing the Third World with prosperity will change their basic attitudes/traditions/beliefs toward life and reduce population.

Nope, but it's a widely proven fact that prosperous people have fewer children. There's less infant mortality, so less need to take a "scatter-gun" approach to raising a family. You have one child, chances are it WILL survive in a prosperous country. Add to that a higher level of education on contraception, and people have fewer and fewer babies. This is evident even between economic groups within prosperous countries. Check out a graph on family size versus household income for a particular country sometime, and you will note that one goes up as the other goes down.

Quote:

Originally posted by markl The argument assumes that if you provide them with wealth, they will behave just as we do. I'm not sure I go along with that. Just look at the wealthy Arab nations like Saudi Arabia. Do they automatically embrace Western notions? Heck no... Mark

The Saudi Arabia analogy is not valid for a whole bunch of reasons, but in any case, that's another argument which I'd as soon not get into here.

 

[markl]

elipsis,
Those are certainly good arguments.
Quote:

There's no reason to believe that. Population is booming in the vast majority of third world countries, from Islamic Northern Africa to India, which is mostly Hindu, to Buddhist Southeast Asia. To assume that all of these widely divergent cultures share an ideal of prosperity through enormous families is culturally conceited in the extreme.

I think the facts should speak for themselves. It has nothing to do with conceit. I'm not a Protestant, a Catholic, a Muslim, or a Hindu. I'm an atheist. I shake my head at all religions. If it's within those countries that we see the most population growth, (and I know this is so in Hundu India) then I should be allowed to say so. I don't think it's slander to point it out. Why not ask why it is so? Maybe there is a correlation between the religion/culture/tradition and high birth rates? Why shut down the argument?
Quote:

Nope, but it's a widely proven fact that prosperous people have fewer children.

Where were these statistics gathered? In Western, Protestant societies most likely. I think it remains to be seen how chronically impoverished nations respond to wealth in terms of population.

 

[kelly]

Reproduction is actually inversely correlated to eductation. Education and standard of living are independently correlated. Statistically, poor but educated people would still have a tendency to breed less.

Given further thought, there is a positive perspective to Mark being against cloning.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Reproduction is actually inversely correlated to eductation.

According to whom, and in which countries/societies? Sitting in a school for 8 hours a day is no insurance against what you're being taught. Just look at the Muslim medrassas (sp?) where they breed terrorists? You can teach anyone anything given a classroom.

Quote:

Given further thought, there is a positive perspective to Mark being against cloning.

Right back atcha!

Mark

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Sitting in a school for 8 hours a day is no insurance against what you're being taught.

And ignorance is a far better defense? These statistics are commonplace across a multitude of sociology and anthropology texts.