Human cloning is bad for our society and future
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent believes that our species genetic diversity would become depleted or exhausted due to the removal of the pressures of natural selection and genetic mutation. This is far from what we should expect from our biotechnological future. We have the ability to genetically map 7 billion different humans.
Pro: Also, DNA diversity would lack and this would prevent evolution from happening the natural way. Humans would not change - because the same genes would continue to circle around - but the environment would.
My opponent seems to believe that evolution is working to preserve humanity. That is not the case. Evolution is an unguided and natural process without purpose. Therefore evolution doesn't predict the future and seek the best answer to preserve a species. Ironically, this is something that one of the evolving species can seek to do through its technology and understanding of human cloning.
Pro: This would affect the future and essentially, our survival limits. Humans have been changing over the last millions of years to go with what the environment is doing, and without genetic diversity, we, as humans, would not be able to survive or live as better as we are today.
Advances in biotechnology will bring about the use of genetic manipulation for physical and mental augmentation. Genetic technology will bring about new techniques that have the potential to eliminate the need for organ transplants, thereby reducing or eliminating the corruption and crime involved in the illegal traffic of human organs. This technology will have the capacity to relieve the psychological suffering of childless couples, or those who endure emotional distress of childhood illnesses. Future advances in biotechnology could even act to preserve the human species rather than our species becoming extinct through unknown disease or genetic mutation.
Developing the ability to clone humans can preserve, protect and enhance diversity rather than diminish it.
However Pro did not offer an answer as to to how we would lose genetic diversity and then offers this:
PRO: "Evolution, in my own words, is the natural change and adaption in species that allows them to survive a changing environment. With the reusing of genes, evolution would not happen anymore. "
My opponent is still operating on the assumption that nature has a plan for survival. Genetic diversity and biodiversity is simply an odds game whereby the survival of a species is more likely where there is a greater diversity in the gene pool. Pro mistakenly makes assumptions that there are only a handful of donors available within the human population and this is simply not the case.
Another problem with Pro"s argument is that "evolution would not happen anymore. This is completely wrong since anything that is genetically cloned becomes subject to the same environmental pressure that already exists.
PRO: "At least not in humans, but in animals (assuming they have not already been cloned), they will change and they could change enough that we couldnt get used to it. As for cloning with animals, this would increse the use of animal farms because we could just clone the most healthy, buff ones. We would be taking animals for granted then, and the cloning of animals would be beneficial to humans, rather than the species of that animal, or to all the animals. "
My opponent has not considered the fact that domesticated species of animals do not play into the evolutionary picture. There are huge advantages where the advancements in genetics provide us the ability to recover endangered species. Also, in the course of pursuing genetic sciences we have developed the ability to feed 7 billion humans.
PRO: "I have gotten a bit of the topic of human cloning, there is another important factor to why cloning is negative. The value of human life would decrease. Why worry about your health when you can just use the organs of your clone? And would the clone have rights to citizenship? Would this act be legal? We would be using clones to cheat life and to create more of a "utopian" society."
Here pro is making more unsupported claims that largely lie outside the scope of this debate. I would ask Pro to demonstrate how one measures value in terms of human life. However, I posit that it is measured by health, happiness and well being without denying those things to others.
marinaspins forfeited this round.
I would like to thank pro again for offering this debate. Pro had an interesting stance that I've heard before but I had never took the time to reflect on where I stood and why.
I learned a few things along the way and in that research found considerably more positive aspects to the evolving and broadening field of genetics than negatives. The concerns that exist will be solved by the best of us.
I wished my first debate would have been furnished with better arguments.
Pro took the position that human cloning would be harmful to society but didn't support her argument well. Her argument failed to demonstrate how human cloning with 7 billion potential donors would present a harm to humanity. She also failed to respond to the countless benefits and spin off technologies that develop along the way. She had no response to the relief of suffering that this evolving technology will provide in the very near future.
Please comment on my arguments and please vote for con
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.