$155,000 for a dog

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28892792/?GT1=43001


I have heard a bunch of negative buzz on the radio about this, but if you spend this kind of coin to have a baby it is understandable.
Yes, they could have adopted a dog from a shelter, but if I had that opportunity to clone my dog, I would. He is a cool dog.

T wo
H ousehold
I ncome
N o
K ids
E arly
R etirement

Oh and I can imagine the bashing they'll get over this. All the bleeding hearts will come out with their usual tripe such as, "Oh can you imagine how many hungry CHYYYLDRUUUN that money would have fed?"

Unless you spend your money helping children or helping breeders to breed, you're a horrible, indignant person.

Quote
annie35
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28892792/?GT1=43001


I have heard a bunch of negative buzz on the radio about this, but if you spend this kind of coin to have a baby it is understandable.
Yes, they could have adopted a dog from a shelter, but if I had that opportunity to clone my dog, I would. He is a cool dog.

I would have cloned my Bear, too, but would it still be the Bear?

Quote
annie35
...but if you spend this kind of coin to have a baby it is understandable.
Yes, they could have adopted a dog from a shelter, but if I had that opportunity to clone my dog, I would. He is a cool dog.

The way I see things, your money is yours so spend it as you please. I would also clone my cat, why not?
As usual, spend $155,000 trying to breed and you will be hailed as a hero, fighting against all odds. Because, as they say, it is worth it :crz. Now spend the same amount on your brand new sports car and you are a piece of selfish scum, blamed for living a hedonistic, consumption-based lifestyle. Happy days. :beer

While I don't begrudge anyone else using Re-Pet services, it's something that I would never care to do myself. Contrary to popular opinion, I do NOT believe that a clone will be exactly like the cloned indiviual, be he human or animal friend, any more so than if he were one of a set of twins, or other identical multiples. He would be perhaps even less similar to a twin because he would have been born and grown up in a different time period and would likely have VASTLY different life experiences as opposed to twins who were raised in the same environment and during the same time period. Even if he has similar personality characteristics, natural traits which are individual to the original pet/person, and is a genetic replica, he has a different soul, different memories, different life experiences, and will be exposed to different physical illnesses, stressors, joys, events, injuries, accidents, complications, weather, etc......... which will shape his personality throughout his life. Even the people who cloned him are different now than when they first adopted the original Lancelot and this will alone affect Lance Encore and his behavior. The time clock can simply not be turned back in this case for the people OR the pet.


I believe that cloning should be used to create body parts, living tissue, and blood products to heal existing people/pets from various illnesses/injuries, and to make the quality of life better for those beings who already exist. I do not think it should be used to create WHOLE people/pets to be used as "replacements" for the deceased, to groom for some potential specific purpose such as another Einstein, Edison, JFK, MLK, etc.......to recreate another genetic human for infertility purposes or inheritance purposes, and CERTAINLY not as whole people housed somewhere for "spare body parts" for the wealthy. Cloning an eye, for instance, from the cell of a blind person so that they might see again, cloning skin cells for use in burn victims, cloning hearts for those who have diseased cardiovascular systems, cloning healthy kidneys for those existing on dialysis, cloning spinal cords for those who are paralyzed, cloning limbs for reattachment surgery of amputees, bones that are ravaged by old age, knees, hips, etc..........This is the type of use that I think cloning would best serve as far as living beings goes. As far as agricultural and environmentally, the ideas are of course infinite. IMO.


I would be the first one in line to clone some of my body parts for IMMEDIATE REPLACEMENT. However, I wouldn't want a beloved pet or a loved one cloned in whole. Each to his own, I suppose.

Quote
kidlesskim
While I don't begrudge anyone else using Re-Pet services, it's something that I would never care to do myself. Contrary to popular opinion, I do NOT believe that a clone will be exactly like the cloned indiviual, be he human or animal friend, any more so than if he were one of a set of twins, or other identical multiples.

Yes I certainly agree. People who think they're getting back 'Rusty' are being fooled. They can duplicate the genetics, but that is all. And we know for a fact that nature AND nurture -- make-up AND environment -- collude to create the individual person/dog/cat etc. In no way is it the same person/dog/cat. It's a bit like taking a cake recipe that calls for 45 million ingredients. Ok, so you use the same 45 million ingredients two times running. Still it's not the same cake twice, and in fact the two cakes will always have differences between them.

A few years ago when they cloned that female cat (white shorthair with patches), people actually thought that her clone would look exactly like her. It didn't. CC (the cloned kitten) looked and acted different -- her patches were entirely in different places and in different quantity, her personality as kitten AND grown cat was distinctive from her mother -- it was just like any offspring who is similar not the same.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

Quote
Amethyst
It's a bit like taking a cake recipe that calls for 45 million ingredients. Ok, so you use the same 45 million ingredients two times running. Still it's not the same cake twice, and in fact the two cakes will always have differences between them.

Great analogy. I agree. It's true people spend scads of money for preemies, &c. & are lauded for their "sacrifice," bla bla bla. But I would not clone my pet; as Amethyst & KK point out, nurture plays a big role as well and I'm not gonna spend $155K on a crapshoot. Besides, every dog I've had is great in his or her own way. My old dog Clover had a sly sense of humor. My current dog Molly is the most loving, guileless creature I've ever known. My other current dog Willie is a shy cupcake. They're all lovely and wonderful in their own way, and if I were to adopt a new one it too would be wonderful in his or her own way--no cloning needed.

Personally, I would not spend the money to clone a pet--there are so many animals in need of good homes that it simply seems wasteful. As other posters have mentioned, the cloned critter may not have the intended personality that an owner was looking to duplicate, so I think there's incredible potential to be disappointed with the results.

As I recall, the topic of animal cloning was explored by Ira Glass on an episode of This American Life about a year ago, with a ranch owner and a prize bull. Did anyone else see this on Showtime?