0 votes

A clone of Dr. Ron Paul


I am interested to hear what the hardcore libertarians in the room say, as well as anyone else, about the topics covered in this talk.

As shown in the talk clones of many creatures have been done successfully already, synthetic life has been built and creatures are being grown that are able to be controlled by a human or a machine.

So I think it worth considering who would own a cloned human? If I grew a human in my lab, do I own that human? How about if I grow a chimp with a human brain that can reason just as well as the rest of us does that chimp then have the rights of a human? How about I grow a human that has a remote control implanted like the mouse in the video and I control that humans thoughts or a machine does, does that human have rights? Its not controlling its body and making the decision I am.

Again, to some this may sound like crazy talk, but as the talk addresses and as I have seen in the work that I do, we are very much in time where such questions are relevant ones to ask.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand Paul..

I thought was Ron Paul's clone..

A Clone

Human reasoning is not possible without a soul, a spirit. Scientists cannot create spirits. A past human with a heart beat and lungs breathing may only be a vegetable made out of meat. However, concluding a living being is past, could possible be the wrong conclusion.

This is how all of those

This is how all of those horror sci-fi movies start out. There's a mad scientist who in a lab and some of the genetic code gets released into the wild and destroys humanity.

Messing with genetic code is a very bad idea. We do not know what the ramifications are and what even one simple change will do to ecosystems. This has bad new all over it's message.

Sounds like the

future New World Order slaves.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Photoshopping Biology....

nothing good can come of this....well at least more bad then good. If man can create life in any form that he likes, then what is God's purpose?

“The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had." - Eric Schmidt

"to some this may sound like crazy talk"

Crazy talk in what way? I suppose you mean crazy as in impossible scenarios -- things like humans with remote control implants or apes with human intellects. What is crazy is that anyone would think such tinkering was ethical.. or even wise.

Such scenarios would all seem to make Mary Shelley prophetic. I find it a bit ironic that at the same time men like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are warning Western Secular societies about the dangers of "irrational" religion and how this is the age of scientific enlightenment, science itself seems to pose more dangers to us than any religion ever has. Science unhitched from the presuppositional foundations of Christian Theism is eventually science run amok.

Already have that lab

Its called a womb. Mix sperm with an egg and you get division of cells. So the flesh would be free just like growing a body in a womb. The question is can you breathe into it the breath of life. Then the harder question can you make him a living soul. Even if you achieve this the question would still be are you sure you did it our do you just think you did it.

The biggest question:

If you do create a human being and you can make it breathe but it has no soul; then what? If it is a monster then what? What should be your punishment for doing so. Would the death penalty really be fair or should it be worse than death.

The answer to your queastion is; It should never happen and should never be considered.

I would say: Get a girlfriend dude!

I think thats the solution

We need to get all these lonely scientists girlfriends.

THe way I see it

And I had a big long explination, but people can research homesteading and brute facts on their own.

Murray said it best when talking about animal rights. When the sea turtles can rise up together arm them selves and write a declaration of independence then we can start talking about animal rights. Thats the thing about rights. They come from the creator or naturally or whatever. But you must stand up and take possession of your rights.

So can these creatures stand up and take their rights? Can they write you a declaration of independence? Or the better question is can the pick up a gun and shoot?
In the end cooler heads prevail and certain agreements are made.

On the remote control deal...no free will no rights?

I like it

So the rule is that rights are based upon ones ability to write down such rights and defend such rights with a gun. So all non-human animals, fetuses, infants, most children under 10(then again some kids to progress fast), and those who are physically or mentally handicapped are all fair game. Have I left any living creatures out?