Cloning your pet

[WaterBomb]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28876782/

Personally, I am disgusted by this story.

Rather than adopt one of the thousands of homeless dogs from a shelter, this family spends $150,000 to clone their own dog. Seriously, 150 grand could be put to much better uses than that. I think these people are fucking selfish and heartless.

What do you guys think?

 

[Outlaw]

Oh yes, they are so selfish for wanting to try and bring back one of their own family members that they already know and love while inadvertantly helping science.

They should be ashamed.

 

[Sudo]

It's not like they're not bringing back one of their family members from the dead. It's just another specimen that has a supposedly identical genetic makeup.

Eh, I think it's a huge waste of money too, but if they worked for it they can spend it any way they wish.

 

[Olie]

yeah this really does sound like a waste of money, especially getting a dog from a shelter is... 150,000$ cheaper. Not to mention they could just get one that looks similar to their old dog. That's what I did when my first cat died, and have to say I love him just as I did my first cat.

 

[WaterBomb]

Oh yes, they are so selfish for wanting to try and bring back one of their own family members that they already know and love while inadvertantly helping science.

They should be ashamed.

I didn't mean the idea of bringing back someone they loved was selfish. The selfish part is ignoring the countless dogs in shelters that are going to be put down if someone doesn't adopt them. 150 grand could easily be donated to those shelters to help them expand staff and space so that dogs don't have to be euthanized. And besides, cloning the dog doesn't mean it's going to end up EXACTLY the same. A dog still has to be raised and trained, and though it will be genetically identical, it could develop different mannerisms and habits.

I just have an ethical disagreement with spending this much money on such a pursuit when they could be helping others with it instead of themselves.

 

[Iamslow]

What WaterBomb said, especially because it costs so much and there are already plenty of pets to choose from out there.

I was hoping that cloning would be used for more interesting purposes by now...

 

[tape]

Another of this "My dog is fucking human-like" emotional bullshit, just plus the cloning part.

I mean they don't even inherit memories, what's the point?When they are able to inherit memories and everything, I'll support this idea 100% (unless there's a obvious downside[using a rare/almost-extinct substance /etc]).

Fuck people.

 

[lati0s]

wow this reminds of the movie "the 6th day"

If you've seen it you'll know what I'm talking about

 

[Raj]

^^ Yeah, that was trippy!
Anyways, it's not as if it'd be remotely the same dog due to nature/nurture. But you know what, they wasted their money, not us..

 

[QuickDraw]

i am all for this. not from the aspect that they want a mirror image of the pet they lost but that they are helping to move science and technology forward.

 

[Shigen]

Blech. Cloning will be useful when we're using it to preserve endangered species and attempt to resurrect the extinct, not when it's being used on an asian couple's dog at extraneously high cost.

By the way, Ultraviolet was also a weird movie about cloning...

 

[Brawley]

I wouldnt feel good cloning my dog, I mean I had all my memories with the this one special dog not a clone.
:(

 

[Lexite]

I wouldn't try it. If I tried to copy Lemon, I'm sure the "new" Lemon just wouldn't be the same. Personalities are one of a kind, you cant just copy a personality. The personality in our pets are developed by what we do, not the genetic make up of the pet.

I know Lemon is gone and no amount of science or money can bring him back. I can get back the same bird, same colors, same size, but I cant get back his wonderful personality, that was lost on October 29th, 2008. We miss him.

I agree with waterbomb. It is rather selfish and heartless to spend all that effort to create a dog when there are so many that need homes. And its just bound to be a failed effort, they can copy their dog, but they are going to find out that it isnt really the same dog.

 

[Bentendo1]

I'm kind of borderline on this one. I don't have $150k in the first place to pay for it, but I can understand why someone would do this. If you were close to your dog, and your dog died, who wouldn't want another chance? The main reason I wouldn't want to do it (besides the money) is that I was supposed to relish the times I had with the dog. It'd seem kind of dishonorable to me to do that to the dog.

Another of this "My dog is fucking human-like" emotional bullshit, just plus the cloning part.

I mean they don't even inherit memories, what's the point?When they are able to inherit memories and everything, I'll support this idea 100% (unless there's a obvious downside[using a rare/almost-extinct substance /etc]).

Fuck people.

Umm, have you ever had a dog? They're not some good-for-nothing animals that do nothing but eat, sleep and pee.

 

[akuchi]

that bird looks like it's grinning, it's really spooky
but yeah. on the one hand this is an appalling waste of money. 150k could be so much better spent on a plethora of things that would actually help people instead've just you know, trying to convince themselves that Fido isn't stone cold and six feet under. On the other hand.. there are a million other things that they could have wasted the money on (for some reason I can't stop thinking of personalised numberplates, which have GOT to be the biggest 'I'm a woefully inadequate wanker' signs ever).. and at least this way they're helping science in some way.

 

[Xia]

What makes this really ironic is that animals that are cloned from existing animals have a rediced life expectancy. Take the first cloned horse, for example:

Let's say horses live 40 years. The donor (one to be cloned) was 25 when the DNA was extracted.

The genetic clone of said donor was born, but all of its cells reacted the same way as the donor's. That would mean that the clone was an clone in age as well as genetic makeup.

The donor dies, after living 40 years. The clone dies from genetic diseases not present in the donor at age 15.

In short, this family is just setting themselves up for more heartbreak, because now they're gonna have to watch the same dog die twice, and the second one will only live half (if that) as long as their first.

But w00t for science!

 

[Griffin]

There are always going to be people wasting money. They feel happy if they get their dog back. The people on pimp my ride feel happy if they have 400,000 12" TVs in their car.

I don't care for either. But they own the money, and as such, if they want to spend it that way, I don't care. Let them be.

 

[cookie]

what i don't like about this business is that it further divorces people from the concept of death (which everyone should learn to accept) because by cloning your dead pet you are going into denial about its death.
it's a human thing to want your loved ones to come back, but that doesn't mean it's healthy.

 

[Xia]

I agree with cookie. Cloning is the closest we've come to abolishing death. Although I can see the benefits of cloning in science, particularly in genetics (experiments that call for a control and genetic changes?). However, I do not think that it should be available to the public, or moved onto human specimins.

People in general normally do not understand what's taking place enough to have this stuff available to them. It's just too unethical to be put in the public.

 

[Sudo]

I agree with cookie. Cloning is the closest we've come to abolishing death. Although I can see the benefits of cloning in science, particularly in genetics (experiments that call for a control and genetic changes?). However, I do not think that it should be available to the public, or moved onto human specimins.

People in general normally do not understand what's taking place enough to have this stuff available to them. It's just too unethical to be put in the public.

I was astonished by how easily you dismissed the entire progress of medicine, lol.

Feh, I don't see why cloning humans would be so unethical. They'd be humans just like anyone else, and thus deserve the same rights and respect normally conceived people should have.

As with marriage and sex, legal cloning must have the consent of all parties involved. If you have the permission, what's wrong with it? Ignorance is no good excuse for anything.

Of course, cloning procedures must be more efficient than they are now before working on human subjects. I wouldn't want any clones to be harmed due to 'technical difficulties'.

 

[WaterBomb]

I have personalized numberplates, and I am NOT a woefully inadequate wanker. They cost me $17 a year, so who cares?

On the science argument, yeah they aided it, but 150 grand could have been used to aid science in a much better way.

 

[Syberia]

If I got personalized license plated that say "SKARMORY" on them, would I be an inadequate wanker?

Because my car is silver and red, and I am very tempted to do it.

 

[Polis4rule]

That would suck if it ran out into the street and got ran over.

 

[E.A.]

If I got personalized license plated that say "SKARMORY" on them, would I be an inadequate wanker?

Because my car is silver and red, and I am very tempted to do it.

Do it, so that us smogonites would recognize you when your driving ;)

I think it's such a waste of money, I mean, less than $500 could get a filter to people without water in Africa, and you can get just a fine pet for free from a shelter. It's a strange world we live in.

 

[Veedrock]

Um, it's their money >_> They can spend it how they want. You can't bash them for that. It just isn't right.

Now I'm iffy about human cloning, but it's a freaking dog and they paid for it. Their decision.

Dude, I just watched Mewtwo Returns this morning that there was so much talk of clones and everything. It was nuts (seriously, there was insight that NO kid could pick up on that I caught for the first time).