Would you have your pet cloned?

[Bob in Iowa]

In the news today, the first cloned pet has been delivered to a woman who, for a mere $50,000US, has had her beloved departed cat cloned. As you can see in the CNN news story , the kitten is adorable, but really -- aren't they all.

I dunno, I love my cats, but as far as I am concerned, when they are gone, I am going to miss them dearly, but alas, they are gone. I would rather hold the memory of the original than to try to create a copy.

Now, spending 50 grand on a pet may be an indication of having more money than common sense, but personally, even if I had enough discretionary income to be able to afford a $50,000 copy of a beloved pet, I would rather go to the animal shelter, and rescue a kitten that is already born and is desperately in need of a good home.

But then, that is my opinion. What would you do?

 

[misa.j]

I would enjoy watching the cloned one that is three times bigger, taking my dog down with its paw, or giving her a ride on its back. I wouldn't wait for my dog to pass away to use her DNA because I want to see how the two of them react to each other. :emblaugh:

Seriously though, I can't stop thinking that there is going to be some kind of deformation or retardation in cloned animals, no matter how successful it's done.

 

[TwistedMac]

'tis not the same dog anyway, so why not just get a new one?
I say waste of money...

RE-PET!

 

[CC1]

There is no way that I would clone an animal. Especially cats...It's hard enough to hit all of the ones out there now! :bluush:

*Just a joke you guys!*

seriously, I just don't think that this is an area we should be fooling with! I wouldn't do it! Esp. for $50K! :relief:

 

[TwistedMac]

seriously, I just don't think that this is an area we should be fooling with! I wouldn't do it! Esp. for $50K! :relief:

I agree with the 50k thing, but about fooling around wit it.. why not?

it's not like it's a copy of the animal. It just has identical genes.
sort of like twins. Except I think they don't have as identical genes... right?
I don't see what the biggie is.

The cat still has to grow from fetus to adult cat. it's just another cat.

 

[No-name]

$50,000 is way too much for any cat.
$100 is too much. I've got four. They are not rare or irreplaceable. The next one will be as unique as the last.

 

[Bob in Iowa]

'tis not the same dog anyway, so why not just get a new one?

That's kindof what I was thinking too, that it would not be identical. Even though they are supposedly identical genetically, I think that it is unlikely that the personality would develop indentically.

Think of how stupid a person would feel if, in trying to replicate a beloved pet, they spend $50,000 on an obstinate, bad tempered animal that pees on the carpet, but looks identical to the original.

 

[Frank D. White]

I'd Spend....

$50,000 and trade my wife in to keep my cat I have now healthy and with me for a long time to come! Moonshadow is my constant companion on her bed next to my PC.We are growing old & fat togeather, real buddies!!!!

Frank

:blush:

 

[TwistedMac]

your wife is such a lucky lady, frank.

 

[senseiman]

I think its the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

No offence to wealthy Americans, but I think this is one of those eccentricities that tend to make you look bad when played up in the international media. Just watching the news here and noticing that millions of people have been left homeless and at risk of starvation or infectious disease by that killer tsunami that washed over most of southern Asia and I'm thinking "With 50,000 dollars you could probably save hundreds or even thousands of those people". But I'm also kind of thinking that the kind of person who spends 50,000 dollars to clone 'Mittens' is probably not the kind of person who spends much time worrying about the effects of Cholera on homeless Sri Lankan villagers.

Kind of makes me sick.

 

[Miss_apollo7]

Nah, I wouldn't have my two kitties cloned...I love them soo much but they are individuals and it would be too creepy for me to have them run around in their "second versions." I wouldn't do it, even if it was for free - too creepy, when they have used up their respective nine lives, they will be gone.

 

[Rio Lee]

I think its the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

No offence to wealthy Americans, but I think this is one of those eccentricities that tend to make you look bad when played up in the international media. Just watching the news here and noticing that millions of people have been left homeless and at risk of starvation or infectious disease by that killer tsunami that washed over most of southern Asia and I'm thinking "With 50,000 dollars you could probably save hundreds or even thousands of those people". But I'm also kind of thinking that the kind of person who spends 50,000 dollars to clone 'Mittens' is probably not the kind of person who spends much time worrying about the effects of Cholera on homeless Sri Lankan villagers.

Kind of makes me sick.

I agree.
But I probably do it... if they have memory transfer too... (applies not just for pets). Yea, people move on, but losing someone close(pet or human) hurts and blind our minds(for most people) and if the technology existed and they have the money for it, they probably do it regardless the ethics.(probably they will regard it later). I guess when we are sad, we lost the ability to reasons.
Probably?

 

[miu]

What a silly idea... It's like when a kid's hamster dies and the parent buys a new hamster that looks exactly the same

The only reason why it'd make atleast some sense is when you have an animal that has really good genes, maybe they'll actually do that in the future when they need new dogs for finding drugs or bombs and so forth...

 

[oreo_cookie]

No, I wouldn't.