Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 556467" data-attributes="member: 1054">This is true, but I don't see cloning as a meaningful threat to human genetic diversity. For that to happen, the bulk of the population has to be replaced by clones drawn from a relatively small subset of the population, and I don't see any reasonable circumstance under which that would occur. Since you can't create a clone any faster than you can create any other baby, there's not even the 'repopulating after a disaster' scenario. "Rich people would clone themselves a million times!"Except, of course, that the upper classes (in Europe and America) have FEWER kids overall, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is splitting up the family fortune into too many pieces. How could, say, Bill Gates raise 1000 little Gateses? Raising even three or four children is a challenge.If clones are a threat to genetic diversity, then, so are twins (and triplets, quadruplets, qunituplets, etc), and, in the interests of preserving genetic diversity, all but one of a group of genetically-identical fetuses should be aborted. The ludicrousness of this proposal should be obvious. (Also, fertility drugs which increase the liklihood of genetically identical children should be banned.)(Besides which, to humans, MEMETIC diversity is far more important...)</blockquote>