2006-11-04 01:11:04 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
not unless we had less than 200 people
2006-11-04 01:14:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i don't think so, i can't see anyone putting them new selves through the risks, after all, a human has never been cloned beofre, we don't know of the effects in later life, or anything.
Hopefully someone would reallise that a small population could save the planet faster than any treaty talking about reduction in carbon emmissions (seriously, by the time i'm 30 there will be 'no turning back' according to scientists), and other species would probably flourish. and think, no need for a huge econemy, or anything, all the money that people paid in tax before they died - everyone would live in the nicest areas around, and think how much you would inherit, if loads of people around you died.
2006-11-04 12:34:57 · answer #2 · answered by fatal_essence 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cloning is a very bad idea, if there is a genetic weakness (screening may not detect unknown conditions)
then you are potentially just creating another body with the same vulnerability to a disease \ condition. By mixing genes you can remove weaknesses and allow a less vulnerable being to live.
Basicly cloning does not make evolutionary sense and Im sure we would all rather have a lot more sex.
2006-11-04 16:04:53 · answer #3 · answered by Mark T 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, actually to begin cloning off an already depleted population would endanger genetic diversity and would make the remaining populace susceptible to plague or disease.
The solution would be for small bands of human communities to grow again naturally as we did when Homo sapien was just beginning to fashion tools and carve the foundations for civilization. Natural human reproduction, in the absence of sterility, would be the most beneficial.
2006-11-04 09:29:23 · answer #4 · answered by RHJ Cortez 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I just think people would have a lot more sex..and if sex didn't really work then pregnancy by surgery or whatever... test tube babies would be made all the time, but cloning would take just as long as making someone pregnant and would have the same gene's.. mainly.. so whats the point..someone new is a better option than someone we already have on earth..even if everyone likes them..it's less natural.
2006-11-04 09:14:59 · answer #5 · answered by Aaron 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, it would be a bit pointless really.
First I would ask why you would want to rapidly and artificially increase population levels again?
The second problem is that small populations generally struggle because of a lack of variation - cloning existing population members isn't going to inject any more variation.
2006-11-04 10:44:18 · answer #6 · answered by lauriekins 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even if it diminished rapidly there would still be enough of us around for us not to become extinct!
2006-11-04 14:56:16 · answer #7 · answered by huggz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
whether you conceive babies through cloning or the old fashioned way, the end process is the same. so either way would repopulate in a similar time frame.
2006-11-04 09:58:04 · answer #8 · answered by delujuis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really. THe world is currently extremely over-populated. Losing a few million, or even billion, wouldn't hurt much, unless you're one of those million.
2006-11-04 09:20:52 · answer #9 · answered by Purplepossum 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
probably, though this would take months and you might be better just having lots of test tube babies implanted
2006-11-04 13:01:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋