Clone Army

[LordJaric]

Ok In school I'm doing a project on genetic engineering, one thing with that is cloneing. One of the arguments people use aganist it is that someone will make an army and use it to conqure. I see some proplems with that.

1. It takes a long time to grow someone.

2. You would need a lot of women.

What do you think?

[Musician]

Cloned or no they would still be human beings. forcing them to fight in an army would be slavery.

[fahrenheit]

Cloning provides several complications for health, as the more you clone the more likely they are to contract a disease. So if you, for example, cloned one person to continuously make a 200,000,000 manned army you would probably lose most of them in a few decades to diseases.

[LordJaric]

At 1/6/08 10:05 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Cloning provides several complications for health, as the more you clone the more likely they are to contract a disease. So if you, for example, cloned one person to continuously make a 200,000,000 manned army you would probably lose most of them in a few decades to diseases.

So why do people use the idea of a clone army as a reason for not letting cloneing happening.

[Maxben]

At 1/6/08 10:18 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 1/6/08 10:05 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Cloning provides several complications for health, as the more you clone the more likely they are to contract a disease. So if you, for example, cloned one person to continuously make a 200,000,000 manned army you would probably lose most of them in a few decades to diseases.

So why do people use the idea of a clone army as a reason for not letting cloneing happening.

Because they cannot see the benefits of it. Cloning in the future after much development might be able to generate an army. The fear is that once we get into that stage, there is no turning back and we will have war and slavery so they wish to nip it at the bud. But of course, this is the nuclear energy and nuclear bomb argument.

Nuclear Energy: A powerful form of energy that is harmless (unless used in badly planned Soviet plants) to the environment and can fix most problems inherent in other nonrenewable resources such as there is a lot of uranium and it gets used very slowly.
Nuclear Bomb: A horrific weapon capable of destroying the world if a couple explosions go off at the same time. This is a serious threat to the world.

They both come from the same science, but one is amazingly good and one is horrifically bad. But this is the nature of all developments! We can stop trying to move forward as a people, but this helps nothing as someone (who maybe willing to exploit clones) may get to the sci fi manufacturing army stage, while we sit twiddling our thumbs because we weren't willing to get into a position where we need to make laws restricting its use due to our laziness! Imagine another country found the atomic bomb first, as all things will be discovered eventually, would they have held back like the Americans (they dropped two out of desperation, that is holding back) or would they have just sent them willy nilly?

[Myko324]

Nuclear Energy: A powerful form of energy that is harmless (unless used in badly planned Soviet plants) to the environment and can fix most problems inherent in other nonrenewable resources such as there is a lot of uranium and it gets used very slowly.

The funny thing about uranium is that while it produces a very clean exhaust (steam), refining uranium ore from mines is a very polluting process.

[Maxben]

At 1/7/08 01:59 AM, Myko324 wrote:

Nuclear Energy: A powerful form of energy that is harmless (unless used in badly planned Soviet plants) to the environment and can fix most problems inherent in other nonrenewable resources such as there is a lot of uranium and it gets used very slowly.

The funny thing about uranium is that while it produces a very clean exhaust (steam), refining uranium ore from mines is a very polluting process.

Interesting. I don't really know much about nuclear energy but I was always led to believe that it was incredibly clean all the way through.

[fahrenheit]

At 1/6/08 10:18 PM, LordJaric wrote: So why do people use the idea of a clone army as a reason for not letting cloneing happening.

The only people I have heard use that argument are people that don't really understand exactly what cloning is outside of science fiction movies.

The only good use for cloning would be to produce exact copies of your organs, that way if one gets seriously damaged instead of waiting for a donor you could simply pull your spare one out.

[stafffighter]

At 1/7/08 02:07 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

The only good use for cloning would be to produce exact copies of your organs, that way if one gets seriously damaged instead of waiting for a donor you could simply pull your spare one out.

And the moral argument there is that if you make a clone for that purpose are they a person with rights? Would taking the heart needed to live be considered murder?

[Myko324]

At 1/7/08 02:07 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 1/6/08 10:18 PM, LordJaric wrote: So why do people use the idea of a clone army as a reason for not letting cloneing happening.

The only people I have heard use that argument are people that don't really understand exactly what cloning is outside of science fiction movies.

The only good use for cloning would be to produce exact copies of your organs, that way if one gets seriously damaged instead of waiting for a donor you could simply pull your spare one out.

I completely agree with you. The last thing we would do if we were presented with free use of this technology is make some buff army. We don't have the psychological research to estimate what would happen if these clones were forced to live together. Imagine a mass identity crisis, kind of distracting don't you think?

[stafffighter]

Well lets take the organ doner question and apply it to the idea of a clone army.

If we make clones would they be human? Would making them and raising them for a specific service be considered slavery? Would it be murder to send them out to die?

[Drakim]

Making a clone army is a lot more effort than making a normal army.

They still need to be raised, and feed, for several years until they are old enough to be soldiers. They still need to be trained, and still need equipment.

Mercenaries are a lot cheaper and easier than that, and will most likely be for some more hundred years.

Cloning has become a scary topic because of science fiction. It's almost so sad it's funny, that fiction can cause people to fear something so much.

Opposing cloning on moral grounds doesn't quite add up for me. Cloning is in all effect the same as having a twin. Unless you also classify having twins immoral, then what makes cloning so much worse?

[stafffighter]

At 1/7/08 02:25 AM, Drakim wrote:

Opposing cloning on moral grounds doesn't quite add up for me. Cloning is in all effect the same as having a twin. Unless you also classify having twins immoral, then what makes cloning so much worse?

Because only in really sucky familys is one twin considered a walking organ farm for the other.

[Myko324]

At 1/7/08 02:20 AM, stafffighter wrote: Well lets take the organ doner question and apply it to the idea of a clone army.

If we make clones would they be human? Would making them and raising them for a specific service be considered slavery? Would it be murder to send them out to die?

Yes to all of the above. Cloning does not (in my opinion) starve a body from a soul. It is merely like having a baby identical twin. It will grow up and of course have a different personality through environment but remain identically the same in natural qualities. So say you had an identical twin. Would you feel indifferent knowing it would be a pawn in a war game?

[fahrenheit]

At 1/7/08 02:12 AM, stafffighter wrote: And the moral argument there is that if you make a clone for that purpose are they a person with rights? Would taking the heart needed to live be considered murder?

What I meant was the organs, and not the body itself. Like if you were 30 years old and you had a bad heart, so you had another heart made and stored in a proper storage area to wait until you needed it. Maybe set it up so it continually beats or adds nutrients or whatever.
But that certainly is a choice, to have a entire human clone made just for organ harvesting. It would probably look like something out of the Matrix with huge tubes with people in them and nutrient tubes going in and out of them filling some giant stadium.
I would imagine only the reach could afford that, with the feeding and storage of the clone.

At 1/7/08 02:25 AM, Drakim wrote: Cloning is in all effect the same as having a twin.

It really depends on why you have a clone. If its just to have a second you then there is no moral issues. But people have issues of clones being used to harvest organs and create armies, where their natural human rights are taken away just because they had the misfortune of being created in a small tube.

[Drakim]

At 1/7/08 02:27 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/7/08 02:25 AM, Drakim wrote:

Opposing cloning on moral grounds doesn't quite add up for me. Cloning is in all effect the same as having a twin. Unless you also classify having twins immoral, then what makes cloning so much worse?

Because only in really sucky familys is one twin considered a walking organ farm for the other.

You are only strengthing my point. ^^

In your example, it is the act of having another human around for the sake of his/her organs. This is immoral no matter how that human arose, be it cloning or twin. It isn't actually cloning you have a problem with, but organ harvesting.

Same with the other things. Is it more scary to have an clone army than an regular army? Is it more dangerious to clone super humans than to modify existing humans into super humans?

All the fears of cloning seems to be already existing problems asked anew.

[thecoreman]

Use your head : Clone or not, you have to feed the army. And just making it will take ages and tons of cash. It's better to send your own people.

[Al6200]

A clone army in real life is not very plausible, but they were used by the Empire for a few reasons:

-Palpatine needed an army that was outside of political allegiances, and wouldn't fall apart due to the fractured nature of the Republic.

-Palpatine wanted troops with no conflicting loyalties (no parents, states, etc.)

-The army needed to be produced with some degree of secrecy, so he could attack before people realized the extent of his capabilities

[SmilezRoyale]

A droid. army would be easier... They don't have to be fed, and from a pussy humanitarian standpoint at least then you aren't forcing human beings to fight and die.

Honestly though if you can clone a human being and disect it for cells or body parts to be used in transplants i don't see what's wrong in getting humans clones to fight in an army.

It's not like, without a god to beleive in, or the fact that they DON'T have a soul, doing horrible things to them really means anything from a logical standpoint of an atheist or a theist.

[Drakim]

At 1/7/08 04:18 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: It's not like, without a god to beleive in, or the fact that they DON'T have a soul, doing horrible things to them really means anything from a logical standpoint of an atheist or a theist.

Just pointing out, as I am sure you know, that being an atheist or theist has nothing to do with belief in souls. They are related to belief in a God. It would make equal sense to say that a vegetarian doesn't believe in souls.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/7/08 05:03 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/7/08 04:18 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: It's not like, without a god to beleive in, or the fact that they DON'T have a soul, doing horrible things to them really means anything from a logical standpoint of an atheist or a theist.

Just pointing out, as I am sure you know, that being an atheist or theist has nothing to do with belief in souls. They are related to belief in a God. It would make equal sense to say that a vegetarian doesn't believe in souls.

Yes, i mean that if you are a Theist [Mainstream westerner in this case is probably going to be muslim, christian, jew, or maybe buddhist or hindu] You might beleive something created by unnatural means would lack a soul; denying it the right of being treated as human; in which case there would be an annoying humanitarian movement yatta yatta yatta.

From the standpoint of a person who didn't beleive in any sort of Divine prospects of the universe, the way that clones are treated should really matter very little; since humans have already domesticated animals that live to either be killed or to serve the purposes of humans them selfs. It would be enslavement of course, but who cares really? Who is to say it's wrong?

I'd avoid cloning anyway, not because there's something inherently inhumane or wrong about it, but the clones might turn on their masters, given the situation. At least when you clone and kill them for body parts they can't rebel.

[LordJaric]

At 1/7/08 06:02 PM, Seven-Too-Five wrote: people have free-will

Not if they are brain washed at a young age.

[SadisticMonkey]

Completely infeasible.

By the time a man gets to the age when we can make the judgement that he is the best possible soldier, it is too late to (successfully) use him for cloning/

[Al6200]

At 1/7/08 08:33 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Completely infeasible.

By the time a man gets to the age when we can make the judgement that he is the best possible soldier, it is too late to (successfully) use him for cloning/

No, because you could be taking and storing samples well before that date.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/7/08 04:57 AM, thecoreman wrote: Use your head : Clone or not, you have to feed the army. And just making it will take ages and tons of cash. It's better to send your own people.

;
I said this in a different thread today.
I seen it in a movie, I can't remember which one , but
" it's easier to hire 1/2 the poor ,to kill the other half...""
Cold but true.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 1/7/08 09:58 PM, Al6200 wrote:
No, because you could be taking and storing samples well before that date.

But you wouldn't know who to take the samples from.

[stafffighter]

The problem I'm seeing here is the same as a lot of other topics, that is people veiwing the issue in a vaccume.

As this pertains to cloning, you have to look into the reasons behind making the clone. It's not done just for the fun of having more people around.

[bobomajo]

What reason does a clone have to fight? And how would you make them fight?

I think clones would revolt against their creators.

[Soundgasm]

At 1/7/08 02:12 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/7/08 02:07 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

The only good use for cloning would be to produce exact copies of your organs, that way if one gets seriously damaged instead of waiting for a donor you could simply pull your spare one out.

And the moral argument there is that if you make a clone for that purpose are they a person with rights? Would taking the heart needed to live be considered murder?

It is possible to grow the organs outside of a human. All they do is kill an embryo, and they aren't even aware of their own existence. I do not consider that murder.

[SmilezRoyale]

Droids are much better, SBD's and droidekas ftw...

Never the less; i don't see the moral argument in 'human thought' as a basis for 'to kill, or to not to kill'
Emotions are after all, from a secular veiw, chemical reactions in the brain.