Would it really? We're not talking about an exact clone now here, we're talking about a hybrid, as was stated earlier if I read right. Even though it would still be useful towards evolutionary scientific studies, it wouldn't be entirely correct since the data would be disrupted by the outside source of different DNA.
As I said, the only use I see for cloning is to clone organs for people. Any other cloning would be a relative waste of time and effort and we don't even know the unknown risks of it.
I always wanted to ride or pet mammoth. Cloned people would be even cooler. They'd work for us. Immortality within reach, next step in human evolution. Handsome Jack was right. I support the idea.
I imagined it being a "give your child another chance at life" kind of mentality. As for the personality differences due to environmental in… morefluences, that's why I stipulated that this should only be done at a very young age, before the child has developed any distinctive personality traits. I'm also envisioning a pretty involved process involving psychological assessment of the parents and such. I don't know. I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I always wanted to ride or pet mammoth. Cloned people would be even cooler. They'd work for us. Immortality within reach, next step in human evolution. Handsome Jack was right. I support the idea.
In some sense, it is. Think about it like...genetic reincarnation. True, if the child had achieved consciousness before it was lost, the clone wouldn't be a continuation of that consciousness. But it would retain a very significant aspect of that consciousness in its genetic make-up. Like a...biological soul, if you will. I could see why people would value that. And for those who do, I don't find sufficient reason to stand in their way.
Yes, he was. Jack was a visionary, don't you understand? One day people will find the way to store memories of dead peoples and they'll be transfering them somehow into new clone. Eternal life.
I'm not joking. So many species were destroyed by mankind. We owe them. Cloning will bring them back. We must overcome ethics, religions, and other "bars in the window" and work hard on this issue.
Comments
Cloning extinct species could give us potentially valuable insights into evolution and pre-historic life.
Would it really? We're not talking about an exact clone now here, we're talking about a hybrid, as was stated earlier if I read right. Even though it would still be useful towards evolutionary scientific studies, it wouldn't be entirely correct since the data would be disrupted by the outside source of different DNA.
As I said, the only use I see for cloning is to clone organs for people. Any other cloning would be a relative waste of time and effort and we don't even know the unknown risks of it.
I always wanted to ride or pet mammoth. Cloned people would be even cooler. They'd work for us. Immortality within reach, next step in human evolution. Handsome Jack was right. I support the idea.
But cloning a baby is not giving that person another chance to be alive in that form.
Expect he wasn't real Handsome Jack anyway. Just like your clone wouldn't be you.
But yeah, I know that you're joking.
In some sense, it is. Think about it like...genetic reincarnation. True, if the child had achieved consciousness before it was lost, the clone wouldn't be a continuation of that consciousness. But it would retain a very significant aspect of that consciousness in its genetic make-up. Like a...biological soul, if you will. I could see why people would value that. And for those who do, I don't find sufficient reason to stand in their way.
Yes, he was. Jack was a visionary, don't you understand? One day people will find the way to store memories of dead peoples and they'll be transfering them somehow into new clone. Eternal life.
I'm not joking. So many species were destroyed by mankind. We owe them. Cloning will bring them back. We must overcome ethics, religions, and other "bars in the window" and work hard on this issue.