What are the implications of cloning for genetic reproduction?

Isn't it in everyone's genetic interest to clone themselves perpetually?

And even if you believe in group selection, which suggests that selection operates on groups of individuals that share the most copies of genes with one another, wouldn't cloning be in everyone's interest since by definition clones are exact copies of an individual's genes?

Assuming that researchers perfect cloning enough that clones are at least as healthy as their wild-type counterparts, I don't see why I should object to cloning any more than I object to monozygotic twins. If a large fraction of the population decides to start cloning themselves, I might have to revise my opinion, but I currently guess that such a happening will be unlikely. Most members of the public who have enough money to afford cloning also have enough mental wherewithal to understand that they would not be rearing themselves; they would be rearing their much younger twin sibling. That should cut back on some of the narcissistic motives.

What seems to me to be a greater temptation will happen when we have genetic engineering perfected enough to use on humans. Most people have aspects about themselves that they dislike. My guess is that those who can afford it will be strongly tempted to design children who are like themselves in many ways but who lack characteristics their parent or parents perceive as genetic faults. In other words, if I live long enough, I expect to see more persons who are eighty or ninety percent genetic copies than I do clones.

Human society works because we hold individuals responsible for their actions. If several individuals were to appear to be the same individual, some of them would be blamed for the actions of the others. This would work to make people irresponsible.

Identical twins are clones of each other, and they cause enough confusion.

We're all made up of huge populations of clones -- clones all specialized in a cohesive community called a "body" so cloning is, in a sense, regressive. What is the point?

Of course, there is another thing to consider:

Recent history has been particularly genocidal for no good reason other than irresponsible use of technology so it would be a good idea to give genotypes that have suffered recent declines a chance for sexual reproduction in a less sexually pathological world.

James Bowery,

Could you explain what exactly you mean when you say that cloning is "regressive"?

As far as reproduction is concerned, in a world where cloning is feasible, why would sexual reproduction be necessary aside from it being pursued as an end in itself for recreation and pleasure?

If the maintenance, preservation, and flourishing of certain genotypes found in particular groups is the aim, wouldn't sexual reproduction and recombination eventually lead to mutations and novel genotypes? How is this better than the perfect preservation provided by cloning?

Offended!?!??

Heck no - the minute cloning Humans is perfectted I'm puttin' out as many copies of myself as I can possibly manage to get out there in the wild.

Humanity is the Disease and I'm the Muther F-IN CURE!!!

(at least a good portion of them sure seem to get in my way of progress)

;-)

Seriously tho - I can see no downside to manufacturing a steady supply of like-minded allies - I'm all about that!

I wouldn't mind having a few more Einsteins solving our most difficult problems.

Warren, what I mean by "regressive" is that meiosis is an advance over mere mitosis or even simple recombination such as occurs in bacteria. If you look at genetic algorithms, for example, meiosis is simulated by randomized cross-over between "mates" for the next generation of algorithms. Simple mutation with mitosis more primitive.

Warren, what I mean by "regressive" is that meiosis is an advance over mere mitosis or even simple recombination such as occurs in bacteria. If you look at genetic algorithms, for example, meiosis is simulated by randomized cross-over between "mates" for the next generation of algorithms. Simple mutation with mitosis is more primitive.

The argument that human cloning is natural is way off and totally irrelevant anyway. Of course human cloning technology would be purely artificial, and in that sense, totally unnatural. But chemotherapy is unnatural too, while cancer is perfectly natural, but I'm not about to reject chemotherapy and embrace cancer.

Randall, why do you want a genetically perfected version of yourself? The appeal of perfecting yourself is obvious to me, but this would be perfecting someone else very much like you, not yourself.

Right now, my biggest objection to cloning is Lono's (or anybody else's) army of like minded allies. Divided, I stand.

"Right now, my biggest objection to cloning is Lono's (or anybody else's) army of like minded allies"

Lono just reinvigorated my opposition to cloning.

James Bowery,

Sure, meiosis was an "advance" over mitosis when it occurred in evolutionary history.

But how is this relevant once cloning and other such technologies become readily available? You seem to be ascribing notions of "advance" and "primitive" that only had meaning in a particular context of evolutionary history.

If the goal is the maintenance, preservations, and flourishing of certain genotypes unique to an individual or to an individual's ethny, group, etc., I don't see how cloning isn't ideally suited for such a purpose.

Simply arguing that mitosis is more "primitive" and that it came before meiosis isn't very persuasive.

I'm with adam here.

We have a compulsion to seek improvement, perfectibility, etc., in every domain. Presumably, with sufficient technology we will continuously be able to "fix" and "perfect" ourselves or our clones. But at some point along the line you would be promoting not simply someone like you, but a different person altogether from your "original" self. Wouldn't this eventually be going against an individual's genetic interests, or the individual's EGI if practiced by his or her entire ethny?

I think cloning is an interesting reproductive option, if as said the individual so conceived can be as healthy or healthier than natural born individuals. But I personally prefer what have been called children of the mind. Those would truly be the direct progeny of one's mind|being, completely detached from the genes.

You Fools!

My only mission here on Earth is but To Serve Man!

Do you not know of the Good Book which I carry always??

Adam,

Why create a new person who is like me but better in many ways? Well, the world is full of large numbers of people who are worse than me in many ways (dumber, more ignorant, sicker, less honest, more criminal). Gotta say, I do not like being around people who are worse than me. I'd prefer being around people who are better than me. I get more out of it.

Warren,

If you have a baby thru regular heterosexual sex the resulting kid is a lot less like you than a perfected clone of yourself. Yet obviously billions of people opt to have sex and make babies.

Vanilla Thunder,

Certainly consanguineous marriage creates societies unlike Western societies and unlike societies I would want to live in. Cloning runs the risk of creating similar problems.

Randall,

I don't necessarily disagree with your points. I simply don't really understand what to make of a world in which cloning and other various novel reproductive and genetic engineering technologies are readily available. I guess I'm trying to determine what one *should* do in such a world.

Is-ought. I understand what people do and have done. And I don't think it's too unpredictable what people will end up doing once these technologies are available. But people are adaption executors, not fitness maximizers.

I understand if you approach this from a strictly utilitarian viewpoint. It becomes relatively easy to handle. Use the technologies to maintain and preserve one's conscious existence for as long as possible and make it as pleasurable, enjoyable, interesting, etc. as possible. And use the technologies to fashion one's environment (material, organic, human, etc.) in order to meet those goals as well as possible.

But are you completely ignoring genetic interests at every level? (gene, individual, group, ethny, etc.) Do you think they matter?

Warren,

Genetic interests obviously matter. But how they matter is something more complicated than you are for your genetic variants and against the genetic variants of others.

Consider: I want to replace some of my genetic variants. Some of them are not core to my identity. Why should the genetic variants for my kidneys, liver, or pancreas be core to my identity? I do not know exactly which ones are flawed. Parathyroids? Thyroid? Peripheral vasculature? Got enough cavities over the years that I could probably do with better genes for matking teeth. Surely some organs probably could work better with fixes.

Genetic variants that influence cognitive processes seem most important to identity. Though people also feel more loyalty to relatives who think differently than they do to friends who think more alike.

I'm not sure what I should believe about cloning. But with or without cloning we are going to see different patterns in reproduction and in genetic endowments of offspring as a result of biotechnological advances.

Randall,

If I'm going to raise a kid, I'd like to see some combination of my own traits and the traits of someone I admire who is similar to me in some ways and radically different in other ways emerging in this child. Sure, I'll go for the genetic patches. Better functioning organs are a good thing. But compared to this, raising a perfected clone of myself just seems boring, and not worth my time or money. If I'm going to make a kid, that kid should be someone who I need to meet. I don't need meet myself. I know what I'm like.

So maybe the difference in our perspectives is as simple as you don't think it'd be boring to raise someone so very much like you.

Adam,

Okay, imagine you started with your own DNA and fixed all the bugs. Then suppose you did some personality alteration and cognitive enhancement (I'm assuming we'll know many of the alleles for higher IQ in 10 years). Okay, you still think raising the kid will be boring?

To put it another way: What's gotta be different to not be boring?

Second, aren't there differences that you'd really not want in a kid? I do not want to raise a psychopath or a natural complainer or a kid with several other objectionable qualities. I also do not want to raise a kid dumber than me. I'd be bored for sure with that.

Randall,

Both great questions. It's much easier to say what I would not want. Having a psychopath, a moron, or a criminal as a child would be the worst possible outcomes.

I'd also be horribly disappointed with a child who doesn't have a sharp skepticism and distrust of authority, despite the difficulty that would naturally cause me as a parent.

As for what I'd want to be different, I find it easiest to get very concrete. I just met someone who thinks very visually. It often takes her some effort to put her thoughts into words. I'm extremely verbal. When I imagine something, I can't help but put what I'm imagining into words in my head, often without actually coming up with any image. I find differences like these fascinating, and I'd be far more interested in a child with some combination of these traits than one who thought more or less like I do.

I'm also pretty scatterbrained. It's something that I actually like, most of the time, but again, I'm more intrigued by the possibility of a child with some of my scatter-brained tendencies and another person's focus. Gregariousness/reservedness, ambition/easy-going-ness, and seriousness/playfulness are all the sorts of traits I'd rather see vary in lots of different ways rather than have them all similar to my own tendencies.

Getting back to the original prompt, if reproductive cloning would push us any closer to societies that practice consanguineous marriage, that fact would be my top objection to the technology. Those societies horrify me.

Warren writes: If the goal is the maintenance, preservations, and flourishing of certain genotypes unique to an individual or to an individual's ethny, group, etc., I don't see how cloning isn't ideally suited for such a purpose.

Look at it from a genes-eye-view: You've teamed up with a bunch of other genes to build an organism. The way you chose your partners was meiosis. Why do you want all of your clones to be on the same team every time? Don't you want some of your clones to have a chance at finding a better team so your competing alleles are less competitive for your cistron?

Now let's escape Dawkins and Lewontin and talk about genetic correlation structures:

Why would a genetic correlation structure no want the same advantage over competing correlation structures?

When you use the word "individual" as though it is the unit of selection, you are in an untenable position.