Cloning: Is this some kind of joke

[Hemlock]

I found this on another website.....WTF!

http://www.cyclonedairy.com/

[Spud Addict]

Are there any ethical issues about cloning?

No

You've got to be kidding! What the hell is wrong with people.

[harpy]

"From our clones to your home."

It ought to be satire, but I'm not sure it is!

[Honest_Goodbye]

I was told the other week that cows are cloned. We were actually talking about cloning horses (i was surprised that it has been done).

[Ruby Rose]

It's a wind up, surely.

[harpy]

They can definitely do it unfortunately, but it seems such a strange marketing ploy.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/04/67175

[bradders]

I'm not sure that it's demonstrably worse than the standard practice, just more expensive and from what I understand the process is far from perfected so there is a higher chance of 'defects' rather than lower. It looks like a hoax but then there is nothing that links it to a parody site or anything.
I really hope that no-one would buy clone milk or beef for that matter.

They do seem to keep repeating the words 'perfectly safe' far too often

[BlackCats]

It's a wind up, surely.

I thought that at first but it seems serious. Urgh.

[Enchantress]

-

[Risker]

Are there any ethical issues about cloning?

No

LOL!

No, of course it's not real. The tag line is 'perfectly safe'. Mmm, perfectly safe... *drool*

Also notice that there's no contact details on the site. It looks like the kind of website that's launched to go along with a film plot.

[Prawnil]

It looks like the kind of website that's launched to go along with a film plot.

Yes! And so incredibly creepy because of that. It looks like a joke that's had all traces of humour edited out of it. If it's meant to be satire, it's badly done. I find it confusing but intruiging - I can't work out their purpose. Plus, it must have been expensive.

[harpy]

Maybe you're right, Risker, and it's "viral marketing" designed to promote a film or something...in which case it's working on us, isn't it, although I'm not sure I'd go to the film. (Prawnil might though )

[Mahk]

Would someone please kindly explain to me who or what is the victim in the crime of "cloning" making it "immoral/wrong" and in what way they are harmed physically/mentally? I'm not asking from the perspective of us vegans who shun animal use in general, but rather that of a more common omni citizen who believes keeping, manipulating, and even eating animals such as cows is a perfectly morally acceptable thing to do. Thank you for taking my question seriously and answering my query with dignity and respect.


Anyone who dismissively replies, "Well it's just simply wrong, plain and simple. Everyone knows that!" Is giving me nothing more than a cop out response, as far as I'm concerned. [On the off chance the expression "cop out" isn't universally known to all English speakers, and is American slang only, I provide a definition here.]
---

When asked what's wrong with incest, for example, I can easily invoke, "The fear of inbred progeny" as a response, but when confronted with "But what about a same sex relationship between consenting, adult siblings?" I'm stuck and can only use the cop out, "Um, well....because society says so!"

I think cloning may be analogous to this but I await further explanations from all of you kind people. Thank you.

[harpy]

The main thing that makes me think it's worse than "normal" agribusiness use of reproductive technology is the fact that a high proportion of cloned animals are apparently born with defects which make their lives short and possibly painful. From a practical point of view, reducing genetic variation in a species of animal also seems likely to increase the risk of epidemics, in a similar way to plant monocultures.

FWIW here's the UK RSPCA's viewpoint:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...=1125906258684

[petunia]

Would someone please kindly explain to me who or what is the victim in the crime of "cloning" making it "immoral/wrong" and in what way they are harmed physically/mentally? I'm not asking from the perspective of us vegans who shun animal use in general, but rather that of a more common omni citizen who believes keeping, manipulating, and even eating animals such as cows is a perfectly morally acceptable thing to do. Thank you for taking my question seriously and answering my query with dignity and respect.


Anyone who dismissively replies, "Well it's just simply wrong, plain and simple. Everyone knows that!" Is giving me nothing more than a cop out response, as far as I'm concerned. [On the off chance the expression "cop out" isn't universally known to all English speakers, and is American slang only, I provide a definition here.]
---

When asked what's wrong with incest, for example, I can easily invoke, "The fear of inbred progeny" as a response, but when confronted with "But what about a same sex relationship between consenting, adult siblings?" I'm stuck and can only use the cop out, "Um, well....because society says so!"

I think cloning may be analogous to this but I await further explanations from all of you kind people. Thank you.

While on this topic, I am also interested to know the answer to the above question. As well, I'm wondering about stem cell research... I know it can save lives, but isn't it also very similar to cloning, as far as ethics are concerned?

Everyone seems so happy about the fact that Obama has changed things so it is possible, but I often worry about repercussions..?

Any thoughts?

[bradders]

stem cell work isn't quite the same page of the textbook as cloning but the next chapter maybe. Stem cells can be extracted from embryos or from umbilical cords and these cells can develop into just about any tissue required essentially when exposed to the right tissue. They are the cells from which all others in the body 'stem'. Provided all of this work is done with human cells I have no problem with it at all. However the initial techniques were developed with animals and this is regrettable. This is the case with much of medicine. We can't and shouldn't un-invent the wheel and when stem cells can not only increase the lives of patients dramatically they can also live longer in better health. Evidence demonstrates that stem cells can repair damage a pancreas and may even provide hope for degenerative brain conditions.
What is used are the very early cells before they begin to form into any specific tissue. At this stage we are dealing an organism of less complexity than plants and little more complex than basic multicellular life forms. It is not yet a person. When the cells are retrieved from umbilical cords any abortion related controversy is not even relevant. It is just recycling human tissue in a way that can have a massive health benefit.

When dealing with the embryos initially these may be cloned or otherwise, it makes little difference however selection is advisable at least to ensure quality. These embryos are destroyed before real tissue develops and so there is not an actual human clone resulting from this.

I should add that this is dealing with foetal and embryonic totiopotent stem cells. All animals have stem cells in their body as part of the natural repair/replacement of the body (a new you every 7 years as they say).

[harpy]

I don't have a problem about stem cell experimentation because no nervous systems are involved and therefore there isn't any suffering. In fact I'm in favour of it, not least because that type of research could replace some animal experimentation.

[Mahk]

The main thing that makes me think it's worse than "normal" agribusiness use of reproductive technology is the fact that a high proportion of cloned animals are apparently born with defects which make their lives short and possibly painful.

People continue to breed dogs for example that are genetically predisposed to hip dysplesia [spelling?] and other maladies so from the perspective of an average Joe meat eater I don't think they worry about such things as long as the cloned beast has value to us. You are thinking too much like a vegan! It's not what's right for the animal but rather what's useful to us, (from their perspective, of course).

Also in regards to failure rate at initial trials that wouldn't concern them either. All medical procedures are botched in early trials before they become perfected. I'm sure limb re-attachment success was pitiful at first but we can do much better now and eventually we'll perfect that, for example. Same would be true of human artificial insemination so should that be banned or should we continue to try and perfect it?

From a practical point of view, reducing genetic variation in a species of animal also seems likely to increase the risk of epidemics, in a similar way to plant monocultures

That may be an issue if a scientist proposed banning all non-clones of that species and keeping only the clones alive but I don't think any ever has.
If for some reason the clones in a colony all die from "super bug 2010-b" then you just start over again until you find a bug resistant version.
----

I'm really most interested in what the "ethical" dilemma is. I don't get who the victim is and what happens to them. All I ever hear from others ( not this forum) is "It's playing god!" even from atheists! We've been "playing god" ever since we discovered how to breed/cull animals to genetically manipulate them into forms we desired at the time like pit bulls, poodles, and pugs. These aren't natural occurrences they are all man made.

[harpy]

People continue to breed dogs for example that are genetically predisposed to hip dysplesia [spelling?] and other maladies so from the perspective of an average Joe meat eater I don't think they worry about such things as long as the cloned beast has value to us. You are thinking too much like a vegan! It's not what's right for the animal but rather what's useful to us, (from their perspective, of course).

That's a bit of a generalisation about non-vegans It's not only vegans that are against breeding of dogs with genetic defects -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7779686.stm

"Starting again" after an epidemic would be costly and the animals affected would suffer, as we have seen during foot and mouth outbreaks and the like. Again, animal welfarists and not just vegans would be concerned about that.

I don't know what objections to animal cloning someone who was completely unconcerned about animal welfare would have; you should ask them really.

[Mahk]

I appreciate your efforts though. Thanks. The arguments the RSPCA and you have mentioned seem more like "what are the pitfalls of breeding, in general" to me.
Sure, you might come upon a strain that is susceptible to a malady accidentally along the way, true, but if you are of the mind that breeding is an OK thing to do in general and that this is an inherent but acceptable risk of breeding, what makes cloning specifically evil? [no need to answer]

[Zero]

They tested the cloned dairy product on 200 test subjects none of them suffered any adverse reactions................. that is all except for subject #42......... but they don't like talking about her.









Seriously though; this can't be real can it? The statements are so over the top and the videos seem ridiculous.

[Mahk]

Blogs are not evidence, just some layperson who may be duped just like us, but here (should anyone care):

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blo...a-bad-practice

takes some time to load but eventually did.
---
If this is all a hoax then it came from some incredibly rich hoaxer (Rick Berman AKA meat and dairy council frontman?); those videos alone took tens of thousands of dollars to act/tape/edit/produce/mix/light/direct for instance. Not just some kid with a camcorder obviously.

[Mahk]

Also I think the whole premise is suspicious. I would suspect a cloned cow costs 1000 to 100,000 times the amount of money it takes to make a cow the old fashion way. An entire herd to make milk would cost billions. If this thing even exists it's really just a herd of cows that are seven generations away from an original clone or two. Big deal. The actual cows making the milk aren't clones at all, they are multi generational descendants of clones probably with mixed blood added in along the way, I'd think.

Anyone know, on average, how many offspring an average cow has over a lifespan?

[Spud Addict]

From an ethical point of view, I would see it as just another way for animals to be created purely for the slaughter for the plates of humankind, in exactly the same way as factory farming.

From the perspective of an omni, I think it's generally seen as messing around with things that we know relatively speaking very little about.
I think that cloning, whether of animal or plant is generally seen as weird by most people. I don't profess to know anything about cloning or its process, but we all know, as vegans, exactly what sort of reactions we get from people who just don't understand something.

[Mahk]

Who can tell me what I just ate? Here are some clues:

- it was a live organism as I ate it yet it did not squirm or scream as I bit into and then swallowed it bite by bite
- the first step in eating it is to skin it, alive
- I then proceeded to rip its ears off which I popped into my mouth and ate raw, with glee
- the organism is named after part of its body surface which resembles a part of all mammal's bodies, including humans.
- the organism was the result of a genetic mutation, created in Brazil in 1820, which caused two interesting physical mutations:

A) it is sterile and can not have sex to reproduce, therefor the propagation of the species since 1820 has been solely through cloning the original one. What I ate was an exact, genetically identical clone to the first one in 1820!

B) after ripping it in half with my bare hands I discovered the internal, underdeveloped conjoined twin (AKA "Siamese twin"), which I also ate.

Any guesses? Yes, BTW, I'm still a vegan.

The answer here.

[bradders]

I love those things (nearly said what they were there)