Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

Would you let you or your loved ones have a back-up clone?


Vulcan

Recommended Posts

(edited)

What if there came a time in your lifetime where you or your loves ones could clone themselves as a sort of insurance policy in the event that something

horrible happens to you or them. The Clone would have all their memories from the instance they were created and would be stored as data in a hard drive

until the event that said horrible circumstance would occur and would then be created in a sort of 3-d printer like fashion. 

 

On one hand it's probably really immoral and border-line creepy but on the other

you can really help the folks who rely on you for support, I mean, If I were an adult, I'd gladly go through with it, Afterall,

Who better to take care of my future kids in the event of some catastrophe than a carbon copy of well....me o_o

 

Would you allow you or your loved ones to opt-in to such a policy? Why or Why not? 

(Such a Dark Topic, Just watched a video about stem cells...and I just sort of thought of this...) 

Edited by Coffee
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the same idea with a transporter from Star Trek. I don't think it is immoral. Except if you activate the copy before you die. You could update your backup every night so that you would only lose a day. I think people would do anything to have a lost child back.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against it. I hate when people are bred as tools, and using identical clones just to replace someone who passed away fill that category. Clones are people whose birth is artificial, but they deserve the same rights we possess, and that includes their right to lead their own lives, have dreams, hope, and a future to look forward to 

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, there is a huge sense of eeriness around doing this. Knowing that the 'clone' is not the original person and thinking of the original person who had passed away would freak me out to no end. o_o So I think I would pass on the idea, even though it could have its positives.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

Reality isn't like Star Trek transporters. To scan something at the quantum level you have to destroy it. So there can only be one copy of a person at a time.

Anything else would just be a cheap, flawed copy. And I wouldn't do it because it wouldn't be me. I don't care if something similar to me exists after I die.

Edited by Fluttershutter
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would advice against it, manipulating life in ways that defy nature's wisdom, creates heavy karmic experiences for successive incarnations.

Everyone is free to learn by choice. Yet, this would be an opportunity to remind the cause-effect of our own actions, over successive life-times.

If you think is fair to reproduce a body-type sharing your genetic traits, despite it being inhabited by another line of consciousness. Then go on.

You will experience the causality to imprison other life, for fear of your own. A hint, it won't be pretty.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were possible (which I can't say for certain whether it is or not) I'd have no issues with it. Though I'd personally not really care to use it myself, because I don't feel the need.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if you've heard of the show Black Mirror but there's an episode with the exact premise you outlined in your opening post.

Personally I believe scientific progress exists outside any moral framework; it can be used for good or bad. The choice is ours. Replacing the dead with carbon copies is intriguing as it offers the potential for a sort of pseudo-immortality, at least in the eyes of others besides the deceased. I think full cloning is inevitable if scientific knowledge and research continues to march forward, regardless of some peoples apprehensions. Some country or organization or even a solitary figure will attempt it and eventually succeed. China is already experimenting with gene editing and considering a near future where it's children will be more and more designed for optimal health and faculties. So we'll see.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve Piranha said:

I'm against it. I hate when people are bred as tools, and using identical clones just to replace someone who passed away fill that category. Clones are people whose birth is artificial, but they deserve the same rights we possess, and that includes their right to lead their own lives, have dreams, hope, and a future to look forward to 

I think the idea is that the clone is formed at your age with all your memories to that point. The clone would have all the rights as you did. The whole point is the clone picks up where you left off.

From the clone's point of view, this is what he will see. He (you) step into the backup machine on, say, Monday. You wake up in the clone bed and say to yourself, "oh crap, I'm in the clone bed. I'm a clone. I guess I died and they replaced me." Someone tells you that you got hit by a car on Tuesday. Today is Wednesday and your funeral is today. Then you go back to work Thursday.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, They call me Loyalty said:

I would advice against it, manipulating life in ways that defy nature's wisdom, creates heavy karmic experiences for successive incarnations.

Everyone is free to learn by choice. Yet, this would be an opportunity to remind the cause-effect of our own actions, over successive life-times.

If you think is fair to reproduce a body-type sharing your genetic traits, despite it being inhabited by another line of consciousness. Then go on.

You will experience the causality to imprison other life, for fear of your own. A hint, it won't be pretty.

I feel like you're on a different level of consciousness.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit too freaky to wrap my head around. No matter what, I would still see the clone as a clone. In fact, the clone would serve as a painful reminder that my loved one passed on, which would cause me much distress. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
29 minutes ago, BronyNumber42 said:

I think the idea is that the clone is formed at your age with all your memories to that point.

I'm curious as to how this would be achieved, how your memories would be completely replicated and inserted into a cloned body(one supposedly grown at an accelerated rate). Perhaps a memory bank of some sorts would have people's minds copied into it digitally and stored for future transfer. Although that would raise up a lot of security and ethical questions regarding privacy. I'm not sure how such an institution and process would be managed or regulated. Reminds me of the Johnny Depp film Transcendence.

29 minutes ago, BronyNumber42 said:

The clone would have all the rights as you did. The whole point is the clone picks up where you left off.

Well that's debatable. If you're a clone that's been grown and assigned to the strict purpose of filling in someone else's life, even if you are biologically identical in every way, you didn't have the right to refuse being made for that purpose, even if you can change your mind about how you want to live afterwards. Of course nobody chooses to be born and there's  much in our lives we have no control over. But to be tasked with taking over another person's life with memories you didn't actually create but simply had installed puts in question what rights one has over their consciousness and what value if any our memories have in forming in our identity. What if the clone is based on someone who committed suicide? Is it right to perpetuate their existence for the comfort of others?

29 minutes ago, BronyNumber42 said:

From the clone's point of view, this is what he will see. He (you) step into the backup machine on, say, Monday. You wake up in the clone bed and say to yourself, "oh crap, I'm in the clone bed. I'm a clone. I guess I died and they replaced me." Someone tells you that you got hit by a car on Tuesday. Today is Wednesday and your funeral is today. Then you go back to work Thursday.

That's a very utilitarian and practical outlook. Somewhat dehumanizing I'd say. What I don't understand is why you would openly tell someone they're a clone. I can't think of many things that could be more distressing or have more potential to trigger an existential crisis. What you're describing sounds like an abomination from a dystopian future. Besides having a funeral defeats the whole purpose of perfectly cloning someone and filling their shoes socially. At that point you've admitted that the clone is in fact a different person, identical but not original and thus inferior(as a tool and not a self-driven agent).

If I woke up one day and discovered I was a clone of my memories after having died I wouldn't just go back to doing things as usual. I'd take that second chance at life and try to get more out of it, even if that meant making some big changes and hard choices. 

Well okay, might not because I'm a pretty lazy and nihilistic bastard. But I bet a lot of cloned people would.

8 minutes ago, Lady Kiriness said:

It's a bit too freaky to wrap my head around. No matter what, I would still see the clone as a clone. In fact, the clone would serve as a painful reminder that my loved one passed on, which would cause me much distress. 

So the obvious solution would be to not only copy the memories of the deceased into the cloned(minus any memories prior to death) as well as removing your memories of their passing. Then neither of you will know the difference. Of course, someone will know. Whoever is manipulating the memories of their clients.

Edited by Roughshod
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not.

Life and existence is PRECIOUS, folks - and it's meant to be that way.

To have access to backups like clones and such?  That will bring the value of an individual WAAAAAAY down.  I mean, c'mon - who pays attention to someone when you can simply restart them? It's like, if you have a save right before the boss in a game, how much ACTUAL interest do you put into all the PREVIOUS saves and lives..?  

I feel that the advent of this kind of technology would only serve to make humanity even MORE impersonal than it already is... and devalue human life.  

So, yeah - I wouldn't want it...

 

 

 

 

... of course, a clone party with yourself, yourself, yourself and you would be kinda nifty...

 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roughshod said:

At that point you've admitted that the clone is in fact a different person, identical but not original and thus inferior(as a tool and not a self-driven agent).

How is a clone inferior or a tool?

If the clone was duplicated the way I described (in a transporter) then the duplicate is you.

3 hours ago, Randimaxis said:

I would not.

Life and existence is PRECIOUS, folks - and it's meant to be that way.

To have access to backups like clones and such?  That will bring the value of an individual WAAAAAAY down.  I mean, c'mon - who pays attention to someone when you can simply restart them? It's like, if you have a save right before the boss in a game, how much ACTUAL interest do you put into all the PREVIOUS saves and lives..?  

I feel that the advent of this kind of technology would only serve to make humanity even MORE impersonal than it already is... and devalue human life.  

You could say the same for any medical procedure.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BronyNumber42 said:

How is a clone inferior or a tool?

If the clone was duplicated the way I described (in a transporter) then the duplicate is you.

You've answered you own question. The clone is a clone. By the standard I just layed out, that such a human being is merely a stand in lacking its own directed history, it is effectively the lesser.

Only by the most shallow and rudimentary metric is a clone designed to replicate the life of it's predecessor equal to said predecessor. The original and the clone, while identical are still distinct as entities. Inserted memories are not the same as shared consciousness. Unless your physical brain matter is actually transplanted into your clone, your death will be the end of you. Only from other's perspective will you still exist as you did before. But the clone is not you. You, as you know yourself, will be gone.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. It seems really pointless.

For one thing, having a clone of somebody doesn't mean having an identical copy of that person. That might sound nonsense but it's very grounded in reality. A clone would probably not share that person's memories and experiences. They might not even look entirely the same because cloning doesn't account for environmental effects like lifestyle and epigenetics. As people, we're a composite of the expression of our genes and the environmental effects upon them including memories and personal experience. Cloning just can't perfectly replicate that.

You can create a genetically identical copy of a person. But you probably can't replicate all of their quirks and mannerisms. Think about it. How different would you be if you had been if you lived in an entirely different country? You would likely have different values and a marginally different personality.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be against the idea of cloning a loved one. The point of cloning one's self to raise one's children in the event of a tragic demise is an interesting one; the kids would have someone familiar to deal with as opposed to a distant relative or even a complete stranger. But on the other hand, kids are more perceptive than most people give them credit for and I don't think they could love a clone as much as the original parent. They would know the difference and to try to sell off a clone as the real deal would be a lie. Clones are little more than carbon copies. They do not have the soul of the original, and thus are little more than programmed machines that came in late to the party. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the objections to the idea are based on the notion that the clone would not have the same memories. That it would be grown from a tube and hyper aged. But cloning, for the purposes discussed, would be pointless of it couldn't have the same memories. There was a Star Trek Enterprise episode where they did this.

A duplicate that was an exact, transporter copy, as opposed to a tube grown copy, would be you. It is you just as much as if you used the transporter. People can debate whether or not a transporter you is you, but at the end of the day nobody cares.

I'm not talking about a situation where you super age a child by 40 years in 1 week and implant memories into his brain. I think that would be wrong.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
2 hours ago, BronyNumber42 said:

It seems the objections to the idea are based on the notion that the clone would not have the same memories. That it would be grown from a tube and hyper aged. But cloning, for the purposes discussed, would be pointless of it couldn't have the same memories. There was a Star Trek Enterprise episode where they did this.

A duplicate that was an exact, transporter copy, as opposed to a tube grown copy, would be you. It is you just as much as if you used the transporter. People can debate whether or not a transporter you is you, but at the end of the day nobody cares.

I'm not talking about a situation where you super age a child by 40 years in 1 week and implant memories into his brain. I think that would be wrong.

It does show an interesting quirk in society...

A Dude would wake up in a cloning facility and think "Oh S#*T , I died...well....At least I can go back to life as normal" , but in reality he couldn't ...Based on the above posts, His family, his wife, his kids, his friends Would all treat him as an Alien, A horrid remembrance of what they just lost....Even If the Guy looks , thinks and acts like the diseased, and truly believes he is the same guy....No one would care, To them he would just be a living phantom , an uncanny duplicate...A Clone. 

It'd make for an interesting dystopian tragedy... o_o 

Edited by Coffee
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BronyNumber42 said:

I think the idea is that the clone is formed at your age with all your memories to that point. The clone would have all the rights as you did. The whole point is the clone picks up where you left off.

From the clone's point of view, this is what he will see. He (you) step into the backup machine on, say, Monday. You wake up in the clone bed and say to yourself, "oh crap, I'm in the clone bed. I'm a clone. I guess I died and they replaced me." Someone tells you that you got hit by a car on Tuesday. Today is Wednesday and your funeral is today. Then you go back to work Thursday.

Yeah, but what about the soul? It may have the memories of the deceased person, but not their soul. The clone would have a soul of it's own, and let's not get started once they figure out that the memories of the passed person are not it's own, and shit will go over the edge at various degrees if it start to rebel 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clones aren't an exact 100% copy. Sure on the outside they're the same, but clones have different personalities and opinions from the original. I would never want my friends or family to be cloned unless that's what they want. As for me I'd probably clone myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...