My thoughts are these people are fooling themselves. You are still going to lose your beloved pet. It is still going to break your heart. The one thing that is not the same when you clone is the personality. Now when you lose your pet have one that looks identical to remind you everyday of your loss, and it will not act the same. I think the companies cloning are making a fortune off these people's emotions and it shouldn't be allowed.
I saw on the news this morning that people are paying $50k or more to clone their pets. Their rationale is that they think it will ease the pain of losing the "starter" pet. Thoughts?
If I had the disposal income...I would.
I understand the intentions. But for myself, I think I would rather give a shelter pet a chance at a happy home than create another one.
I think it is morbid!
And frankly a little creepy!
No clone could ever replace my kittys. Every one was an INDIVIDUAL. And I'd always know.
And if I had that kind of money, I could find better ways to spend it.
CS Lewis has a character ("Ransom", in Perelandra) that is involved in a difficult but extremely worthwhile (and necessary) journey that takes him "onward and upward" and during which the character is sustained by fruit trees whose fruits taste better and better successively.
The concept of only eating each fruit as it is presented (once)---rather than trying to ear the same fruit again and again---is the way I tend to look at cloning, to wit: Growth involves changes---it's appropriate to move on.
They have more money than brains?