What is Digg?90 Comments
- svensko, on 05/22/2008, -2/+10If it makes anyone feel better, these dogs will NOT be EXACT clones due to complications with mitochondrial DNA from the mother. Also, this has happened in the past. I have no issue with cloning non-human species, but what bothers me is that there are dogs starving on the street that could use a good home but these people would rather shell out extreme cash to get a dog which may or may not behave like the dog they are cloning.
- mickstephenson, on 05/22/2008, -1/+8I have never met a dog with the interpersonal skills of the dog I own, his ability to read humans I have never found in another dog, and I have owned several dogs all of which we have gotten from a rescue center where they neuter all the dogs they rehome, so him having pups with his genes is not possible. I have seen pedigree dogs being sold for £600 each (so I guess like $1200). If pet cloning was along the same lines price wise, I would pay that much to clone my rescued mongrel to get a dog with a personality like his. It wouldn't be the same dog but it would have the same genes.
The only issue I would have is that I would be not giving a rescue dog a home, which is the same issue I have with buying pedigrees (which are just inbreeds anyway, not too dissimilar from a clone).
If clones are unnatural then identical twins are all witches. - ptxyz, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4No, in fact it wouldn't. Cloning process != xerox.
- bossm4n, on 05/22/2008, -13/+17This is a ridiculous and perverse idea and is being done out of greed on the part of the company performing the cloning and those willing to spend the money having their pets cloned. Just like the line from Jurassic Park, and I paraphrase, "We were so busy worrying about if we could do it we forgot to ask ourselves if we should and why." This is not about cloning or creating a body part in order to save someone's life, which has it's own moral problems.
This is about someone wanting to hang onto the life or recapture the life of something lost. I have lost many pets over the years due to illness and old age. It hurts like hell to lose a pet or person you are close to, but death is a part of life. There are literally millions of incredible animals destroyed every year because they are unwanted and cannot find homes. The problem of dog and cat over population is out of control. It's not bad enough that puppy mills add to problem, now we have companies that will clone animals. - Condemned, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5NBC11 is my local NBC affiliate, and I like them. But they really need to stop with the crappy slide shows.
- ptxyz, on 05/22/2008, -5/+9If one wants to make a clone of their pet and decides to spent money on it = why the hell not, it ain't your money.
And regarding "This is not about cloning or creating a body part in order to save someone's life, which has it's own moral problems."
Whaaaaa? Moral whaaaaa? If you wife/husband/child loses both legs, you wouldn't do whatever it takes if it was possible to fix that? Ooooookie-dokie then. (by whatever it takes I mean growing a cloned replacement body parts) - svensko, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4That doesn't make it 'right'. ;)
- sb66, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4If someone wants to pay for this, why not? People do stupider things with money.
- jp12380, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3I know I know!!
Hot girls! - MiamiRox, on 05/22/2008, -2/+5This is a stupid concept. All you're getting for $100,000 is a dog with the same genetic make up as the original dog you cloned. It will NOT be the same dog. In all reality, your original dog and your newly cloned dog have a possibility of being completely different from each other.
Its like a human twin. They both have the same genetic make up, but anyone who knows twins or has a twin know that the 2 can be completely different.
This is a HUGE waste of $100K. - ptxyz, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4That's a silly statement. A clone does not replace the grown original.
With that said, if one wants a cat that will look like their cat, for sentimental reasons... Well, what's wrong with that??? - sodade, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4Overpopulation devalues life and individual worth. If you can't think of a good reason to clone an animal, then you are not much of a pet person. I've had enough dogs to know the value of a dog with good genes and emotional traits. I'd rather pay $2000 to clone my awesome Shepherd/Lab mix than $1000 for a puppy of unknown quality. Why do you think that cloning is such an important part of agriculture?
- u8eR, on 05/22/2008, -2/+5Anyone remember The 6th Day?
- Compactman, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2It just makes them stupid.
- Bolin100, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2I remember this movie, "The Sixth Day", right? Oh, this is real life? Ewwww!
- inactive, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4This is seriously creepy.
- edwartica, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Walt Disney
Micheal Jackson
George W Bush
Hillary Clinton
My what a slippery slope.... - chanop, on 05/22/2008, -3/+5nbc11 must have their employees on digg or something. Not that these slide-shows are any good or interesting, but nbc11 slideshows are popping up non-stop
- OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 05/22/2008, -4/+6I can't really think of any good reason to clone an animal. I can think of good reasons for cloning body parts of animals (Medical purposes). Cloning devalues the life and individual worth someone or something if you can just go "make" another one.
- bossm4n, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2@dafragsta
I don't think you understand my point. My primary gripe against cloning is that it's being done for the wrong reasons and that far too many animals are put down every day because they are left to rot in shelters. I would be less opposed to the process if dog and cat over population were not at epidemic levels. I can't begin to tell you how many pure breed dogs I see that have health problems due to inbreeding. From that standpoint I would rather see a clone of an animal than another one bred with another genetic flaw that causes the animal to suffer most of his life. - Hetman, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Cloning is awesome but the price is just way to much. Dogs are almost a dime a dozen. Why would you want to play 100k to have a cloned one. It is not like it is going to remember any of the tricks or anything you taught it. It is still going to start off as a puppy.
- Archer007, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Sixth Day.
- Bolin100, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Somehow I can completely relate to that. Should I be scared?
- sodade, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Again, when cloning becomes economically viable, we could force pet sterilization, which would go a damn long way towards eliminating the need for shelters in the first place...
Beyond that, I have adopted quite a few pets from a shelter and I'll say that the health and emotional issues are a mixed bag. Who wouldn't want the certainty of knowing that your dog is virtually free of genetic defects? - OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Kowalzki, since you who don't understand analogy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
Now to make things ever more clear for you who doesn't understand my reasoning"
You = Animal
Mother = Owner
"The memory of the cat" = Having respect and love for the living thing. Its life and role in you life is not simply a replicable commodity.
My point: If the original cat is dead, let it be dead and follow the natural course of adopting a new cat as your companion. - marketmou, on 05/22/2008, -3/+4I wonder what else they can clone? Hmm. Now let me see....
- kowalzki, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1okay, Einstein, now tell me why we shouldn't do it?
- zbeast, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I don't have a dog I want cloned... but I do have some cells from a cat that I would
like a clone of.. The original animal was spade.. But it has a very cool birth defect 4 ears.
It's a very nice look for this cat, the only way you could possably reproduce this enhancement would be via cloning. - mickstephenson, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Actually I got him from a charity in Britain called the Dogs Trust who "never put a healthy dog down", but I agree I would never buy a pedigree and anyone who wants to get a pedigree I will try and convince to go to the Dogs Trust, I was just trying to put forward the point that cloning an animal you love in my mind does not have any more moral implications to me than buying a pedigree from a breeder (infact less because the reasoning behind it seems less shallow than buying a dog for the way it looks).
Anyway Dugg you up. - sockpuppets, on 05/22/2008, -5/+6No cloning!
- inactive, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3¡ƃuıuolɔ ou
- SamuraiPanda, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1That "Not Milk?" picture was hilarious. Do those idiots even know what cloning entails?
- cynicalliberal, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1A pet cloning company in the state run by the actor who starred in a movie featuring (pet) cloning, that's... Oddly coincidental.
- Terisita, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Because some people are stupidly rich.
- xombi242, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1The 6th day... The XFL edge was pretty accurate in that flick.
- edwartica, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1The fact that there are thousands of cats in shelters that need good homes. If you want another cat or dog or whatever, how about rescuing one from the Humane society before they put it to sleep.
- edwartica, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1For goodness sake, they already gave you Dolly the sheep!
- sodade, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Actually, cloning should be the future of pet ownership as a solution to the huge problem of pet overpopulation. Outlaw old-school breeding - make it law that all pets are sterilized and keep cloneable samples of animals that lack genetic defects. I'd sure as hell love to order an F1 hybrid of a displasia free German Shepherd and a Lab. Yes, it would make buying an animal more expensive, but you are getting a much better product and the high cost will filter out a lot of animal abusers. Old school breeding sucks and I see absolutely no moral issues with this - do you? What are they?
- WestonP, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Just because we have the capability to do something does not mean that we should.
- inactive, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Like all things bizzare and ethically controversial, its easy to say you dont think its a good idea till its you laying in the bed and the Dr. Says would you like us to clone a heart for you, yours is broken.
- sodade, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Are you kidding? Forbes sucks ass, but their slide show is way better than this crap.
- bossm4n, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1@glasgowm
I'm not coming at this from a religious or science point of view, I'm merely stating the obvious question. And to clarify, I am aware of the savior sibling concept. I was actually asking the more harsh question, would you clone a human to harvest it's organs to save a life if the clone would have to be sacrificed in the process. I don't think you have to be overly religious to see that as a moral dilemma. - guillebravo6, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2I don't know what the purpose of this is besides proving that its possible. I think they should focus on cloning human body parts....cloning humans would just make the world even more overpopulated.
- edwartica, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2If you had not rescued your dog, he would of been put to sleep most likely. So, if you want another dog, perhaps its best to rescue another dog that would be put to sleep.
- fuhcough, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2you know, i'm really not against cloning. i think its a pretty kick ass way to make replacement body parts but there definitely needs to be some sort of oversight.
just something for thought... if we continue to clone for the purpose of cheating death (however that might be), at what point does life become less valuable? life has value because it's a limited commodity. when you start removing or altering those limits, life loses its value and, conversely, at some point death will increase in value.
i mean, will you really be as concerned about fido playing in the road if you know you can ultimately clone him if he becomes roadkill? - sovietninja, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Time to digg up Lassie's grave.
- sodade, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I totally disagree - see my post above for details on why...
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is