Depends in how it works.
Do they retain memories? Living history.
Casaulty free wars (depends on the clone though. Think Star wars)
Are they full adult or baby? Adoptable kids.
Are they near perfect copies? Halo.
Extinct Humans
The purpose?!?!? To. Ride. A. Triceratops!!! Like, as in saddle up and HYAH!
Ya, at one point I was still waking about the dinos failing to notice that the discussion had turned to humans.
You can ride a robotics one at Chuck-e-cheeses 😂
It would be good to figure some of this stuff out in normal humans first. (Memories)
Well have androids soon to fight wars for us. I’d like to hold if on cloning until we can live in peace. Just as a measure for human maturity.
Please, there are plenty of unwanted kids to adopt. There are surrogates and ivf. It’s not perfect, but it’ll improve. Plus, I’d rather them tinker with CRISPR to help those with infertility.
Im not convinced that we need this.
I’m too fat for those ones😔
Ok, one stegosaurus for you. But you have to promise you lose some weight 😜
Begone necromancer and let the dead lie.
1 Like
Clones would become either A: 2nd class citizens
Or B: literal master race and we become the second class citizens to whoever paid the most for their ubermensch clones.
Because life isn’t a utopia.
“Science for the sake of science” scenarios never take into account human nature.
As for animals, countries would just be poaching your triceratops out of zoos for all sorts of reasons & there’s so much money behind this that its a problem in its own category. Space race except its about clones. Reviving species ultimately ends up with them as circus entertainment because “lol look its a dinosaur.” Pretty vain goals all around but atleast you can be like “look guys I paid a lot of money to shoot a t-rex and ride a stego” because humanity has a great relationship with nature lol.
1 Like
All we need is another being to fight for right, against discrimination and so on. I think we have enough of that as it is.
Plus, ultra religious folk would not sit well with this.
So, just the stegosaurus with feathers for @NerdatorPrime.
People in general don’t sit well with cloning unless they don’t value life in general but those people are ok with anything. Humans become a commodity. No matter how you spin it that ends badly for either the clones or us.
A bunch of folks here entertain that idea so I don’t think it’s that unpopular. I mean, if millions of people can vote for Trump or biden I’m sure they can be convinced about cloning
Too much jurassic park. People also still go to pet the dolphins trapped in the little tanks and think its fine so yeah people can be convinced of anything if they don’t really care to begin with.
I think there’s always been people that think nature is ours to use at our discretion and that’s more of a disassociative issue you see in people in high places or b. in an age where no one really cares about anything so we go full hedonist.
You have to care about the dangers. Social ones for cloning people. Once you start there won’t be a way back. Plus regulations. Western world might, but if they tech available to everyone who knows what dictatorial or unstable countries would do. Same for animals. Once the tech is available, everyone will have it and there won’t be a way back. Untill the planet is one government i would entertain the idea.
Plus, who knows how viruses or bacteria will react to new life. Do we really want to introduce even more variety there
Ngl China would be eating human clone meat and triceratops burgers a day later under the notion that it would increase their lifespan just like the endangered giant turtles xd
Scientific taboos are taboo for a reason, some people just want to watch the world burn
It’s tempting. But, in my lifetime i hope we get to estaish a colony on mars.
Question for nihilists or blissful madmen, if we can bring anything back from extinction, including ourselves, why care about nature at all?
Just go full cyberpunk, clear out the rest of the amazon rainforest and drop a noah’s arc zoo thing in the middle of it and charge people a leg to enter.
Id rather we use all that empty space in the ocean instead. Absolutely anything could go wrong or north korea just decides to blow up your colony just to screw your space race economy and demoralize everyone forever. Atleast in atlantis if something goes wrong it doesn’t take years to send aid.
Even if aliens were attacking right now countries would still be stabbing eachother in the back while they’re down.
I would mess with the ecosystem. We need the forests and the oceans to keep CO2 levels down. I think i read that oceans are very important when it comes to rainfall as well. Plants due and we die. We are not at the level of creating a planet wide artificial ecosystem.
NK is not doing sheet. The more time passes the less power they’ll have to influence anything
Whether or not Hell is better then non-existence, depends on a few things, some of them personal. I’m personally a supporter of euthanasia because I believe non-existence is preferable to suffering than meets a certain threshold.
Hell is the absence of god, not a place of suffering.
It’s complicated, there’s a real world version of why my name has Clone in it but it actually comes from my son Clone 4. We where walking through the mall and I said “hurry up, Clone number 3” and without missing a beat he said loudly, “I’m not clone 3, I’m clone number 4!”, the lady walking by gave him and then me such a disturbed look that it stuck. I think she honestly believed I’d named my children as numbers.
In video games you die repeatedly but restart at your last save point, the character of Slasher obviously can’t die as a video game character, he’s just reborn at his last check point, with all my memories of what happened. So the clones are the me’s in other worlds that I visit and control to gain entertainment… Clone mostly differentiates me from other Slashers online.
I’m not necessarily against cloning, but we as a species aren’t at a place where we can be responsible for others in the way that makes it acceptable. Think about it like this, ‘is everyone on the planet fed and sheltered,’ if the answer is no, then we aren’t in a place where it’s a good use of resources or where we have the ethical ground to justify experimentation down these lines.
1 Like
Maybr individual suffering can be justified if it leads to survival of a species. At least on the level of genes
1 Like
That’s a separate and rather specific situation. When you’re talking about a group, especially the entirety of it, an individual’s wants or needs can be ignored, doesn’t mean they should be.
If everyone was fed and sheltered, society was both peaceful and exploratory, then my answer might be different as the ethics of the situation change.