What is good in total human cloning?

Question

No Body parts, actual human beings. What is the pro on it?

Answer 1

It would simply add to our repertoire of reproductive techniques.

What some people here don't seem to realize is that cloning does not produce a fully aged copy of the original. It merely loads an egg with the same DNA as the original. (I'm not sure if the mitochondrial DNA is copied as well.) It's like having an identical twin, except they're born later - possibly decades later. They're still as separate & unique a person as any identical twin, if not more so since they will have very different experiences growing up.

Answer 2

There aren't many, really. You could raise yourself as a child. We could get some better data on that whole nature-versus-nurture thing by seeing whether the younger you is substantially different from the older one. (Though how this would be different from a regular old twins study is beyond me.)

You could clone a new body for yourself with minor modifications (beats plastic surgery, and might enable you to live in unusual environments, like microgravity, better), though we'd have to wrestle with how to ethically ensure that the replacement body doesn't have a mind of its own before your brain is planted inside it. We could use it to get around some of the long-duration aspects of space travel: Start a spacecraft off with some clones in early embryonic development. When the spacecraft arrives in 20 years or so at Some Other Solar System, we have a crew of experienced astronauts and scientists in fairly young bodies. (We'd have to figure out how to upload or copy memories and skills into the new bodies, but since we're already talking full-body cloning, I'll count that as a probability.)

I'm sure there are others, but there are a few to start with.

EDIT: I like John's Secret Identity's response, which makes a good point about the twin issue. That's exactly right (unless we do brain transplants like I talked about, but then you have even more ethical issues than we started with). In answer to JSI's question, I don't think the twin would end up with the same mitochondrial DNA unless he was grown in the womb of the same mother, or we deliberately cloned the source's mitochondria, too. (Perhaps we wouldn't have a choice there -- the mitos have to come from somewhere, and the original source seems like a reasonable bet.) At any rate, that raises the possibility of some more interesting studies on the effects of different mitochondrial DNA on people who are otherwise identical.

Answer 3

G'day skater 8705,

Thank you for your question.

Not much and thankfully it has not been done. The success rate of cloning has been low: Dolly the sheep was born after 277 eggs were to create 29 embryos, which only produced three lambs at birth, only one of which lived, Dolly. 70 calves have been created from 9,000 attempts and one third of them died young; Prometea took 328 attempts, and, more recently, Paris Texas was created after 400 attempts. Notably, although the first clones were frogs, no adult cloned frog has yet been produced from a somatic adult nucleus donor cell.

Dolly the Sheep also had aged cells and died prematurely. We have learnt what we needed to know from animals. We don't need to experiment with humans.

I have attached sources for your reference.

Regards

Answer 4

I can not see the pros of total human cloning, the ethics and morals surrounding it would be impossible to pass by.

Answer 5

Twins.
Spare body parts
You can commit a crime then have a good alibi
A bestest friend

Answer 6

Eugenics.

Eugenics may be a sovereign law in the future.

Answer 7

More research is done.

Answer 8

I can't think of one.

Answer 9

good alibi