Forgot your password?

I would draw the line at cloning...

Displaying poll results.
Extinct species (no raptors)
  1950 votes / 5%
  507 votes / 1%
313 votes / 0%
Human organs
  2196 votes / 5%
Human embryos
  3689 votes / 9%
Whole body clones (evil or otherwise)
  4211 votes / 11%
Crazy hybrid clones
  4280 votes / 11%
No limits, pass the popcorn
  20537 votes / 54%
37683 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I would draw the line at cloning...

Comments Filter:
  • by mangu (126918) on Friday February 11, 2011 @10:43AM (#35173922)

    If there's one thing where cloning is justified, it's with human organs. Transplants from other people are a crude stopgap solution until we are able to clone replacements from our own cells.

  • Clone 'em All (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Friday February 11, 2011 @11:25AM (#35174560) Homepage Journal
    And let God sort 'em out!

    But seriously, I want a pet griffin and a pet triceratops with eagle wings. If genetic engineers can give me a steady supply of those, I don't give a damn about what happens in the rest of the cloning world. =)
  • Voted "no limits" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh AT gmail DOT com> on Friday February 11, 2011 @11:53AM (#35175026) Journal

    I would say serious ethical issues should be raised at whole body clones / crazy hybrids, but I'm not going to draw a hard limit on any of those.

  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Friday February 11, 2011 @12:01PM (#35175180) Homepage Journal

    That was more a commentary on the disgusting state of the class-based health care system we are headed for in the US, and not necessarily the technology that enabled it. There is no reason cloned organs would have to be eternally expensive, unless one company owns the technology and creates an artificially scarce market. Hell, if we could save even 50% of the people who die languishing for a transplant, the organs would pay for themselves before too long, both in reduced inpatient care and reduced costs on society related to premature death.

    So repeat after me: medical advances, good; corporate greed, bad.

  • No real choice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zedrick (764028) on Friday February 11, 2011 @01:33PM (#35176634)
    I took "No limits, pass the popcorn", not because that's what I actually want but because that's how it's gonna be. If people (corporations) can make money off [whatever], they will. It doesn't matter what moral objections we might have right now, our morals and laws can and will be adjusted.
  • by foobsr (693224) on Friday February 11, 2011 @07:27PM (#35181804) Homepage Journal
    Patents have a limited life span.

    Patients have a limited life span.


  • by msauve (701917) on Friday February 11, 2011 @08:20PM (#35182300)
    WTF. 100 years ago, it didn't matter how many potential donors there were, you just died. Where does your sense of entitlement come from (nevermind, I know the answer), that you think that death due to lack of a donor organ constitutes "premature death." It's not premature, it's natural.

    "If we could save even 50% of the people who die languishing for a transplant..." it would increase "costs on society," not reduce them. What makes "inpatient care" a cost to society, except an exceedingly misguided sense of entitlement (and those who fullfill it)?

    Yes, I've read Malthus.
  • by X_DARK_X (1881648) on Friday February 11, 2011 @09:49PM (#35182818)
    You can die first then. I fully intend to harvest my organs AND make it sustainable, for everyone. Call me an optimist, a futurist, entitled or whatever, at least my dream extends beyond my own headstone.
  • Re:End-users (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajlisows (768780) on Saturday February 12, 2011 @03:25PM (#35187960)

    Seriously? IT people are the only shining stars amidst a mass of worthless humanity? IT people have hobbies, Users have Snookie. Do you actually converse with any users in a way that may allow you to find out about their strengths, passions, and desires? You may be surprised to find out there are a lot of people out there who are every bit as talented in what they do as you are in what you do. You may even discover that acting like an actual human being around them lets you develop a rapport and in turn makes it more likely that they will listen when you explain to them what they are doing wrong with their computers.

    Oftentimes when I meet IT people they almost invariable are low talent hacks who have an insufferably high opinion of themselves. They believe that the work they are doing is far more important than the work that the stupid lusers who just happen to be creating, marketing, or selling the product that keeps the IT person employed.

    I, like many on here, have been granted the gift of a mind that wraps itself around technology pretty easy. Even with that said there are probably thousands of people on here who are more talented in the ways of IT than I am. I am not so sure that there are many who do a better job than I do though. I speak to the users. I try to find a common ground, feel out the best way to explain things to them, and teach them how to use their devices. It is amazing how quickly you can pique their interest when you approach them without your nose way up in the air.

    I am not saying that there are not hopeless causes. Some people have brains that are simply void of curiosity. They are a blight to competent IT people, Auto mechanics, doctors, accountants, engineers, and shop machine operators. For the rest, let us stop pretending that the way IT people feel about them isn't a huge part of the problem.

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday February 14, 2011 @05:48AM (#35197586) Journal

    From a purely utilitarian standpoint, if someone dies then you need to replace them. Skilled workers cost a huge amount to train - hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a baby and turn it into someone capable of contributing to society. A few thousand dollars to repair an existing skilled human is cheap by comparison.

    On the subject of entitlement, I hope you won't be taking any antibiotics or antivirals under the same logic - 100 years ago, if you had a virus or bacterial infection that your body couldn't fight off, you died. Dying of trivially curable pneumonia isn't premature, it's natural.

  • by scsirob (246572) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @08:18AM (#35208230)

    This will not be a popular opinion but I think we should stop trying to fix every defect in human bodies and trying to extend life indefinitely.
    Our planet isn't able to host more people. Why not concentrate on improving the quality of life and make sure it ends gracefully?

Lavish spending can be disastrous. Don't buy any lavishes for a while.


Forgot your password?