Hypothetical Situation: A cloned loved one...

[Judge Malthred]

Memories in tact or no? If they could get the memories then it would be a very difficult decision, but if no memories then no point.

[Deleted]

Yes, this creation is indistinguishable from the real thing, so memories, grudges, habits, everything remains.

My wife said she wouldn't want it, simply because she believes in the soul.
Me on the other hand would consider this option because the pain of losing a loved one is never fully healed imo.

If it was a natural death due to old age, then I may let bygones be bygones, but if my loved one was murdered or died prematurely I'd pretty sure I'd succumb.

[Newber]

Cloning is kind of an interesting topic to me. Some see the prospect as cruel or immoral: creating a life that "serves no purpose", or isn't "created out of love", or "will never be able to be an individual". I think we're looking at clones the wrong way.

If we're being realistic, clones will have to be gestated and "born" just like everyone else, similar to "test tube babies", today. As a result, clones will only be half of the original. The clone will be perfectly capable of living out its own life, separate from the original.

I think there should be extensive regulation surrounding cloning.

First and foremost, clones are human, and should never be treated as anything but human under the law. This means cloning cannot be used for organ harvesting, slavery, forced prostitution, etc.

Second, clones are their own person, and should never be named after their "original". They are not meant to replace the original.

Before a clone is "requisitioned", a legal guardian must be stipulated by the original, in the original's will.

Clones and "originals" should never exist contemporaneously. This will only reinforce the false belief that clones cannot be individuals.

No one should be able to clone anyone without written consent from the "original". The protection of one's DNA is extremely important. The consent to use one's DNA in a cloning process should be outlined in one's will, similar to organ donation.

The clone should have a right to know they are a clone, and who their "original" was. No one should have to be in a situation where they do not know they are a clone. Clones should take pride in being clones.

The relationship between the living clone and the dead original is something to be determined. Although the course of the future cannot be determined, ideally, the clone should honor the original as one who "passed the baton", so to speak. A clone should take pride in their original in the same way one takes pride in their parents. However, I see the relationship between the clone and original as something different than a child/parent relationship. Something unattainable right now, because there are no human clones yet.

The real trouble with cloning lies within people. There will be people who don't regard clones as human, but this isn't anything new. It's a hurdle to jump. I think welcoming clones into the world as human beings is an important step in the development of the human race. After all, it will be quite jarring to jump directly to welcoming cyborgs as human beings without anything in between.

[Catharlex]

Yes, this creation is indistinguishable from the real thing, so memories, grudges, habits, everything remains.

My wife said she wouldn't want it, simply because she believes in the soul.
Me on the other hand would consider this option because the pain of losing a loved one is never fully healed imo.

If it was a natural death due to old age, then I may let bygones be bygones, but if my loved one was murdered or died prematurely I'd pretty sure I'd succumb.

What happens if this "perfect" clone learns that it's actually a clone? Assuming it has full memories, exact personality traits, etc etc I'm going to go ahead and guess it would go absolutely insane. And eventually, this would happen. It seems highly unlikely that you could ever prevent such an event from occurring.

The second the "clone" learns of it's past self, or "original", they would likely go into a psychotic breakdown. Could you imagine seeing yourself dead, when you never thought there was another you? When the reality you know is that you have always been you, but other people knew a different you who was still the same you? It's maddening.

[Liagala]

If the clone included every memory and experience as well as all the stuff the OP listed, I'd go for it. If it is truly indistinguishable from my loved one, then who cares where it came from? Your origin does not make you who you are. In this case (unlike reality), it doesn't even influence who you are. Why would I care about something that has absolutely no meaning? If everything is completely, 100% the same, then it is my loved one returned to me.

If anything was different though - a single memory botched in the transfer, a minor habit disappearing, whatever - I wouldn't want it. Every time that difference popped up it would scream, "Hey, I'm not the real thing!" at me, and I would come to resent it over time.

---------- Post added 2012-03-09 at 01:46 PM ----------

What happens if this "perfect" clone learns that it's actually a clone? Assuming it has full memories, exact personality traits, etc etc I'm going to go ahead and guess it would go absolutely insane. And eventually, this would happen. It seems highly unlikely that you could ever prevent such an event from occurring.

The second the "clone" learns of it's past self, or "original", they would likely go into a psychotic breakdown. Could you imagine seeing yourself dead, when you never thought there was another you? When the reality you know is that you have always been you, but other people knew a different you who was still the same you? It's maddening.

When the clone comes out of the incubator (or whatever it's created in), tell it, "Ohai. You are a clone. Your original self died by (insert reason here), but we were able to clone you so you can continue your life. Congratulations! Your family is through that door over there." Problem solved.

[Hraklea]

Of course I would, there's no reason not to do it.

[Shrouded]

I definitely would. I don't see why not?

[Reeve]

Me and my wife were in deep discussion the other night about advanced AI/cloning and a possible scenario entered my head.

The hypothetical scenario is as follows:

You lose a loved one that died suddenly. Doesn't matter who, it could be a child, parent, brother, sister or friend. Now, due to the amazing advancements in modern science we are now able to replicate a human with 99.9999% accuracy. I'll call it an AI, or a clone, it has the same feelings, personality, habits, idiosyncrasies as your dearly beloved. This creation is indistinguishable from the real thing, it even ages and eventually dies as we do.

Would you in your grief consider this option if it was offered to you?

Sure, of course. It they're pretty much the same in every way, it would just be brining a new being into the world that loves you and makes you happy. Not sure why you wouldn't.

A human is all new materials every certain number of years anyway.

[Stede]

Of course I'd consider it if it does indeed do all those magic fairy tale things you described.

[Revik]

Assuming such super technology exists I don't think this would even be a question. People who are OK with cloned love ones would likely have already coupled with a cloned 'perfect match' partner and those that remain purist would stick to the old fashioned way.

But to answer the question directly and plainly I probably would. If I can't tell the difference then what difference does it make?

[Deleted]

If you could make a 100% accurate clone of your self would you then be looking out of two pair of eyes? Prolly a question about if there is a soul or not.

[Aristeia]

It would still be a goldfish replacement, they'd still be a stranger.

[Ynna]

So it's pretty much a perfect replica, in every way (appearance, personality, memories...)? I really don't see why I wouldn't do that. Maybe I wouldn't do if for my mom, who doesn't like living much; or my girlfriend who'd die of shock after she learns she was basically "resurrected". But if that wouldn't be the case, I don't see why you wouldn't do it. It has exactly zero downsides.

[Reeve]

It would still be a goldfish replacement, they'd still be a stranger.

Sure, but it would be a stranger who knows and loves you and who you already have the ability to love. With how difficult it is to find someone else in this world already, this would be a pretty fantastic head start.

[Aristeia]

Sure, but it would be a stranger who knows and loves you and who you already have the ability to love. With how difficult it is to find someone else in this world already, this would be a pretty fantastic head start.

Eh, granted this is a hypothetical question and I should follow the 99.999% similarities or whatever, I still can't help but feel that's not possible. Even with that much similarity it would feel better to just let them go, after all how similar could they be after they're told they are just a replacement and they didn't experience any of the things they remembered? Seems like that would change someone a lot, clone or otherwise.

[Reeve]

The only negative I could see out of this is that if this sort of thing became commonplace, it could lead to the devaluation of human life. "Oh, Bob just murdered Sue! That sucks, but at least we can just grow a new Sue!"

[Illuwin]

I would not, and hope this type of technology would never exist. Life and death needs meaning and consequence or we're lost as a species.

[Ynna]

"Oh, Bob just murdered Sue! That sucks, but at least we can just grow a new Sue!"

I really don't see why that's a bad thing. Murder would still be wrong, since it causes pain and discomfort. The consequences would just be a lot less.

[Reeve]

I really don't see why that's a bad thing. Murder would still be wrong, since it causes pain and discomfort. The consequences would just be a lot less.

It would still be killing Sue. It's not just pain and discomfort, it's death. The new Sue isn't the same person as the old Sue, even if she looks and acts the same. The old Sue has still been deprived of her life, so the consequences are no different.

[Ynna]

It would still be killing Sue. It's not just pain and discomfort, it's death. The new Sue isn't the same person as the old Sue, even if she looks and acts the same. The old Sue has still been deprived of her life, so the consequences are no different.

What defines a person? Personality? Still there. Physical appearance? Still there. Memories? Still there. It's an exact replica. Yes, she would be dead. One procedure later (assuming that it doesn't take too much time): she's back. All it takes is time (and most likely money, which Bob should pay for).