I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me. I wasn't really trying to simplify anything. I was just saying that genetic clones already exist.
Identical twins are clones. They are genetically identical barring mutation. That's basically a catch-all for copying errors, environmental mutations, fetal environment, etc.
> Artificial cloning methods as I understand them are distinct from the way natural identical twins form.
Correct, artificial cloning is commonly divided into therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. The pop culture idea of cloning is closest to reproductive cloning. You mentioned that we were close to creating a 'human clone'. I was just pointing out that there already are clones. We might be talking past each other, I was not saying that we have reproductively cloned (or that the two methods are the same). I was just trying to highlight the fact that twins are essentially genetically the same as what reproductive clones would be, as in the outcome isn't that much different.
People do take issue with reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning in humans is still hypothetical at this point, but it is theoretically possible and could yield people that are 'identical' in the same way that identical twins are 'identical.'
> If it were so simple to reproduce "natural cloning", it would already done and commonplace. In reality, it seems to require quite a bit of hacking.
I didn't really say it was simple or currently possible, I said people take issue with it.
> I don't think something having a natural analog makes it any less unsettling.
Suppose, that whether we like it or not, for better or worse, somewhere cloning occurs. Through no choice of their own, these clones exist. They are exactly the same as the natural analog. They are people that would deserve the same treatment and consideration as you or I. The thought of these people being oppressed is unsettling.
I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me. I wasn't really trying to simplify anything. I was just saying that genetic clones already exist.
Identical twins are clones. They are genetically identical barring mutation. That's basically a catch-all for copying errors, environmental mutations, fetal environment, etc.
> Artificial cloning methods as I understand them are distinct from the way natural identical twins form.
Correct, artificial cloning is commonly divided into therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. The pop culture idea of cloning is closest to reproductive cloning. You mentioned that we were close to creating a 'human clone'. I was just pointing out that there already are clones. We might be talking past each other, I was not saying that we have reproductively cloned (or that the two methods are the same). I was just trying to highlight the fact that twins are essentially genetically the same as what reproductive clones would be, as in the outcome isn't that much different.
People do take issue with reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning in humans is still hypothetical at this point, but it is theoretically possible and could yield people that are 'identical' in the same way that identical twins are 'identical.'
> If it were so simple to reproduce "natural cloning", it would already done and commonplace. In reality, it seems to require quite a bit of hacking.
I didn't really say it was simple or currently possible, I said people take issue with it.
> I don't think something having a natural analog makes it any less unsettling.
Suppose, that whether we like it or not, for better or worse, somewhere cloning occurs. Through no choice of their own, these clones exist. They are exactly the same as the natural analog. They are people that would deserve the same treatment and consideration as you or I. The thought of these people being oppressed is unsettling.