Unpopular opinion time (super alpha no pony edition)
VNagato 
@angrybrony
I think it has something to do with implications whether the clone can be considered as a person, or a test subject, and whether the clone is that person or someone else. I think it deals with spiritual/religious aspects as well.
Anyway, cloning animals is okay, but you’re not allowed to clone humans, which I find kinda stupid.
@Shepherd
???
I think it has something to do with implications whether the clone can be considered as a person, or a test subject, and whether the clone is that person or someone else. I think it deals with spiritual/religious aspects as well.
Anyway, cloning animals is okay, but you’re not allowed to clone humans, which I find kinda stupid.
@Shepherd
???
OptimusPrimevil 
@VNagato
one can argue animals aren’t sentient anyways. would a human clone be sentient anyway? will they immediately have the original’s memories that it can function without having to be thought a lot of stuff (assuming the tech is advanced enough to have aged clones).
one can argue animals aren’t sentient anyways. would a human clone be sentient anyway? will they immediately have the original’s memories that it can function without having to be thought a lot of stuff (assuming the tech is advanced enough to have aged clones).
VNagato
@OptimusPrimevil
I call bullshit on the “animals aren’t sentient” argument, I’m not going to go into detail about it, but that’s just people thinking humans are some kind of special thing in comparison to any other creature living on Earth, which is untrue in terms of speaking of biology and just pure observation. “Feelings” and “emotions” are all chemical reactions in science terms, so yes, if we consider ourselves “sentient” I have no reason to believe other creatures don’t have that.
Anyways… I don’t really have an interest in aged clones, but cloning in general. The way they make clones now is no different than what people use now for IVF or any artificial methods to making babies. Basically you make a baby that has the exact same genetic code as yourself (although not perfect because of the method and the fact one’s DNA is constantly changing), the rest of the process is the same as any other pregnancy (unless you want to grow this baby in a test tube or something). If we consider normal humans sentient, than it should be no different than the clone.
Aged clones are a different story since I really don’t know how one could make a fully grown up individual in the realistic biological sense. If you’re going by teleportation type clones, where your molecules are scanned, reproduction of molecules and structures, and erase the old body, than I suppose it’s a bit different. The clone is a copy of that person at that moment when they were being copied, if the clone forms, say a minute after, it’s already a bit different than the original.
I call bullshit on the “animals aren’t sentient” argument, I’m not going to go into detail about it, but that’s just people thinking humans are some kind of special thing in comparison to any other creature living on Earth, which is untrue in terms of speaking of biology and just pure observation. “Feelings” and “emotions” are all chemical reactions in science terms, so yes, if we consider ourselves “sentient” I have no reason to believe other creatures don’t have that.
Anyways… I don’t really have an interest in aged clones, but cloning in general. The way they make clones now is no different than what people use now for IVF or any artificial methods to making babies. Basically you make a baby that has the exact same genetic code as yourself (although not perfect because of the method and the fact one’s DNA is constantly changing), the rest of the process is the same as any other pregnancy (unless you want to grow this baby in a test tube or something). If we consider normal humans sentient, than it should be no different than the clone.
Aged clones are a different story since I really don’t know how one could make a fully grown up individual in the realistic biological sense. If you’re going by teleportation type clones, where your molecules are scanned, reproduction of molecules and structures, and erase the old body, than I suppose it’s a bit different. The clone is a copy of that person at that moment when they were being copied, if the clone forms, say a minute after, it’s already a bit different than the original.
OptimusPrimevil
@Background Pony #D27B
there’s a difference?
basically the argument is not if the animals can experience pain/joy/whatever but can they communicate with us to express what they’re feeling.
probably why cannibalism is one of the major taboos because the one to be eaten can express how messed up that situation is and we can understand them perfectly (unless language barrier happens).
there’s a difference?
basically the argument is not if the animals can experience pain/joy/whatever but can they communicate with us to express what they’re feeling.
probably why cannibalism is one of the major taboos because the one to be eaten can express how messed up that situation is and we can understand them perfectly (unless language barrier happens).
VNagato
@Background Pony #D27B @OptimusPrimevil
Sentient is more emotionally based while sapient is intellectual based, I think.
Are you saying the reasoning against cannabilsm is empathy? Yeah I can kinda get that.
Sentient is more emotionally based while sapient is intellectual based, I think.
Are you saying the reasoning against cannabilsm is empathy? Yeah I can kinda get that.
Background Pony #5AFC
@OptimusPrimevil
Yes there is a difference. Sentient means you have the ability to sense things.
Sapience means you have intelligence and reasoning. Reason why people say that only humans say only humans are sapient is because we have a larger capacity for reasoning than animals. Though by this point it’s pretty much blurred on what animals have some sapience and which do not. I think the only common sentient beings that are common are insects.
“basically the argument is not if the animals can experience pain/joy/whatever but can they communicate with us to express what they’re feeling.”
Most animals are decent at communicating what they feel. It’s just that I think most of them don’t even have something like guilt. A common one is a dog which doesn’t experience guilt.
Yes there is a difference. Sentient means you have the ability to sense things.
Sapience means you have intelligence and reasoning. Reason why people say that only humans say only humans are sapient is because we have a larger capacity for reasoning than animals. Though by this point it’s pretty much blurred on what animals have some sapience and which do not. I think the only common sentient beings that are common are insects.
“basically the argument is not if the animals can experience pain/joy/whatever but can they communicate with us to express what they’re feeling.”
Most animals are decent at communicating what they feel. It’s just that I think most of them don’t even have something like guilt. A common one is a dog which doesn’t experience guilt.
OptimusPrimevil
@VNagato
kinda.
unless one would argue humans are on top of the food chain anyway so we can eat animals (which wouldn’t explain why animals are monsters if they eat people when people aren’t on top of the food chain).
kinda.
unless one would argue humans are on top of the food chain anyway so we can eat animals (which wouldn’t explain why animals are monsters if they eat people when people aren’t on top of the food chain).
Zincy 
In Vino Veritas
@OptimusPrimevil
We’re not “at the top” of the food-chain per se, because that implies we’re still restricted to its bounds.
We’re not part of the food chain. We’re in a position where we effect and alter the chain in such massive ways that to say we are “top” of it is woefully inadequate. From climate change to GMO’s to artificially created food we’ve pretty much stepped into a whole other realm when it comes to the food chain.
We’re not “at the top” of the food-chain per se, because that implies we’re still restricted to its bounds.
We’re not part of the food chain. We’re in a position where we effect and alter the chain in such massive ways that to say we are “top” of it is woefully inadequate. From climate change to GMO’s to artificially created food we’ve pretty much stepped into a whole other realm when it comes to the food chain.
OptimusPrimevil
@Zincy
more of we have the tech to eat anything else that we become the top by default.
seriously, despite health warnings (high mercury content) and having no taste (artificial versions have been created), people still eat sharks fin soup because it’s a status symbol for some.
think the grass-herbivore-predator-grass cycle, we’re basically predators now where the next step is us being fertilizer for grass.
more of we have the tech to eat anything else that we become the top by default.
seriously, despite health warnings (high mercury content) and having no taste (artificial versions have been created), people still eat sharks fin soup because it’s a status symbol for some.
think the grass-herbivore-predator-grass cycle, we’re basically predators now where the next step is us being fertilizer for grass.
ЅℰℒᎯℙℋℐℰℒ 
Pomegranates :P
I wish the Maverick Virus is a real thing.
Feel the wrath of AI going awry!
Feel the wrath of AI going awry!
OptimusPrimevil
@Thanotos Omega
i think so but the twist ending kinda soured people on it iirc.
became a running gag that spider-man REALLY doesn’t like clones.
i think so but the twist ending kinda soured people on it iirc.
became a running gag that spider-man REALLY doesn’t like clones.
OptimusPrimevil
@Thanotos Omega
it depends on the writer and the series IIRC
hilariously it’s probably not the most wtf clone shenanigans marvel has done
it depends on the writer and the series IIRC
hilariously it’s probably not the most wtf clone shenanigans marvel has done
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!