PDA

View Full Version : Would you clone your pet if possible?


James
September 25th 07, 04:42 AM
Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.

Meghan Noecker
September 25th 07, 07:01 AM
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:42:28 -0700, James >
wrote:

>Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.

No. The clone would have the same genetics, but their experiences
would be completely different. It would not be the same pet. It would
just be a continual disappointment as they wouldn't live up to my
expectations.

I would still have pets, and each new pet would be special in their
own way. And I can rescue pets in shelters rather than waste money
trying to recreate the one I lost.

Jean B.
September 25th 07, 01:49 PM
Meghan Noecker wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:42:28 -0700, James >
> wrote:
>
>> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>
> No. The clone would have the same genetics, but their experiences
> would be completely different. It would not be the same pet. It would
> just be a continual disappointment as they wouldn't live up to my
> expectations.
>
> I would still have pets, and each new pet would be special in their
> own way. And I can rescue pets in shelters rather than waste money
> trying to recreate the one I lost.
>
I agree. While in ways it would be tempting, since I adore
Mingy, the personality would be totally different. Also,
there are lots of cats on this earth who need homes.

--
Jean B.

dgk
September 25th 07, 01:51 PM
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:01:46 -0700, Meghan Noecker
> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:42:28 -0700, James >
>wrote:
>
>>Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>
>No. The clone would have the same genetics, but their experiences
>would be completely different. It would not be the same pet. It would
>just be a continual disappointment as they wouldn't live up to my
>expectations.
>
>I would still have pets, and each new pet would be special in their
>own way. And I can rescue pets in shelters rather than waste money
>trying to recreate the one I lost.

The firm that did that went out of business. Out of the seven cats
that I've had (four now passed), only for two would I even consider
it. Nico (the wonder cat) was just completely special. Espy, still
alive and pretty young, is of that ilk as well. Both very smart and
interesting animals. The others were also all special in their own
way, but these two are really something else.

But if I had cloned Nico, I wouldn't have had Espy maybe. And who can
tell what the next one will be like?

No, there are just too many other cats waiting for homes. Like
breeding, cloning just isn't for me. I'm hoping, if there is a heaven
or a rainbow bridge, Nico will be waiting for me. Along with Bushky
and Luckyboy and Jackie. Hey, there are even a few people that I'd
like to see again.

bookie
September 26th 07, 05:55 AM
On 25 Sep, 04:42, James > wrote:
> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.

no, whole idea is totally wrong and anyway clones can have problems
with early cell death and ageing (see dolly the sheep)
if your current cat passes away then just give a home to one of the
hundreds of thousands of already living homeless animals out there in
shelters just desperate for someone to take care of them

i have to stop now or I might start to get really angry about this
whole issue

bookie

Gandalf
September 26th 07, 07:28 AM
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:49:02 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

>Meghan Noecker wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:42:28 -0700, James >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>>
>> No. The clone would have the same genetics, but their experiences
>> would be completely different. It would not be the same pet. It would
>> just be a continual disappointment as they wouldn't live up to my
>> expectations.
>>
>> I would still have pets, and each new pet would be special in their
>> own way. And I can rescue pets in shelters rather than waste money
>> trying to recreate the one I lost.
>>
>I agree. While in ways it would be tempting, since I adore
>Mingy, the personality would be totally different. Also,
>there are lots of cats on this earth who need homes.

The shelters are full to bursting in most places. Wonderful kitties who
need good homes.

Yes, some idiots like Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears will almost
certainly clone a pet, but then, they aren't too bright.....

Sheelagh >o
September 26th 07, 04:45 PM
On 25 Sep, 04:42, James > wrote:
> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.

No, I don't think I could morally agree with that idea. The whole
thing goes against the grains of life. The very fiber of what makes,
you, you, is a unique thing. To try & clone or capture that spirit in
cat, that has the same genetic make up, will not necessarily have the
same characteristics that your prior cat did. This would lead to
disappointment, not to mention the kinks that haven't been ironed out
of the process yet.

(ie: if kitty1 enjoyed lying around your neck & that was part of what
made her speacial, then how would you feel if kitty 2 Rather's
standing next to your feet?)
Also, there are phyical kinks that occur during the life of the cat,
such as arthritis, & dying young too, as with the same experiment with
Pigs.

I think it would be a disappointing & if you are trying to resurrect
the spirit of the cat that you had, you are chasing a lost dream. That
unique cat was a one off, & there is no way that anyone can capture
the essence of that kitty. Of course this is just IMHO. Others might
feel differently. It would be interesting to talk to someone who has
already taken that step just to hear what their experience is of this
procedure & how they feel it has worked for both them, & the cat too
of course.

Interesting concept, bad idea in IMHO- a summary!

Sheelagh >"o"<

yngver
September 26th 07, 09:17 PM
On Sep 25, 7:49 am, "Jean B." > wrote:
> Meghan Noecker wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:42:28 -0700, James >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>
> > No. The clone would have the same genetics, but their experiences
> > would be completely different. It would not be the same pet. It would
> > just be a continual disappointment as they wouldn't live up to my
> > expectations.
>
> > I would still have pets, and each new pet would be special in their
> > own way. And I can rescue pets in shelters rather than waste money
> > trying to recreate the one I lost.
>
> I agree. While in ways it would be tempting, since I adore
> Mingy, the personality would be totally different. Also,
> there are lots of cats on this earth who need homes.
>
> --
While there may be other reasons to choose not to clone a pet, the
argument that the clone would not have the same personality is not
entirely valid. The reasoning here being voiced here seems to be that
personality is determined by experiences, but that is not completely
true. Identical twins raised separately generally have many similar
personality traits even though their experiences have been different.

Cloning is much more common with livestock, and clones can display
almost uncanny similarities in personality.

If someone is expecting the clone to be exactly like the original pet
in every way, that may result in disappointment. But if the goal is to
have another pet that is a lot like the first one, that is not
unlikely.
-yngver

Rene S.
September 26th 07, 09:52 PM
On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, bookie > wrote:
> On 25 Sep, 04:42, James > wrote:
>
> > Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>
> no, whole idea is totally wrong and anyway clones can have problems
> with early cell death and ageing (see dolly the sheep)
> if your current cat passes away then just give a home to one of the
> hundreds of thousands of already living homeless animals out there in
> shelters just desperate for someone to take care of them
>
> i have to stop now or I might start to get really angry about this
> whole issue
>
> bookie

Amen! I agree.

Kate[_2_]
September 26th 07, 10:34 PM
I seem to have missed the original post on this subject so I will jump in
here :) I would not clone. I believe each and every one of my beloved pets
are "one of a kind" you may be abe to clone a body, but you can't clone the
spirit :) My beliefs anyway.

Regards Kate and the 2 madams
"bookie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On 25 Sep, 04:42, James > wrote:
>> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>
> no, whole idea is totally wrong and anyway clones can have problems
> with early cell death and ageing (see dolly the sheep)
> if your current cat passes away then just give a home to one of the
> hundreds of thousands of already living homeless animals out there in
> shelters just desperate for someone to take care of them
>
> i have to stop now or I might start to get really angry about this
> whole issue
>
> bookie
>

Jean B.
September 27th 07, 12:42 AM
yngver wrote:
> On Sep 25, 7:49 am, "Jean B." > wrote:
>> Meghan Noecker wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:42:28 -0700, James >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>>> No. The clone would have the same genetics, but their experiences
>>> would be completely different. It would not be the same pet. It would
>>> just be a continual disappointment as they wouldn't live up to my
>>> expectations.
>>> I would still have pets, and each new pet would be special in their
>>> own way. And I can rescue pets in shelters rather than waste money
>>> trying to recreate the one I lost.
>> I agree. While in ways it would be tempting, since I adore
>> Mingy, the personality would be totally different. Also,
>> there are lots of cats on this earth who need homes.
>>
>> --
> While there may be other reasons to choose not to clone a pet, the
> argument that the clone would not have the same personality is not
> entirely valid. The reasoning here being voiced here seems to be that
> personality is determined by experiences, but that is not completely
> true. Identical twins raised separately generally have many similar
> personality traits even though their experiences have been different.
>
> Cloning is much more common with livestock, and clones can display
> almost uncanny similarities in personality.
>
> If someone is expecting the clone to be exactly like the original pet
> in every way, that may result in disappointment. But if the goal is to
> have another pet that is a lot like the first one, that is not
> unlikely.
> -yngver
>
>
Interesting. Well, I still would not clone Mingy. Better to
give a home to a cat who needs one.

--
Jean B.

Sheelagh >o
September 27th 07, 01:57 PM
On 27 Sep, 01:14, "Matthew" > wrote:
> "James" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>
> crossposting removed
>
> This is were religion and science end up scaring the hell out of this old
> man. If the clone was an exact copy right down to the memories and
> personality would you be stealing their soul from the a peaceful journey
> across the rainbows bridge.

A very good observation, & an extremely good point. One wonders what
will happen when you cross playing God with your desire to retrieve
something that you have already said your goodbye's to? The Rainbow
Bridge is there for a reason. To yank a cat back would be defying the
reason for it's existence.
Sheelagh>"o"<

yngver
September 27th 07, 05:44 PM
On Sep 26, 7:14 pm, "Matthew" > wrote:
> "James" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...> Most pets are fixed so you can't even have their children.
>
> crossposting removed
>
> This is were religion and science end up scaring the hell out of this old
> man. If the clone was an exact copy right down to the memories and
> personality would you be stealing their soul from the a peaceful journey
> across the rainbows bridge.

I think part of the problem with the issue of cloning and other kinds
of reproductive technologies is that many people confuse science
fiction with the real technologies involved. I remember the uproar
over "test tube babies" when in vitro fertilization resulted in Baby
Louise. None of the far-fetched fears people voiced then came to
happen, and none of the livestock now regularly produced by cloning
have their parent's memories, so you don't need to worry. Your
personality may be partially determined by your genes but your
individual memories are not.
-yngver

Meghan Noecker
September 27th 07, 11:26 PM
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:17:53 -0700, yngver > wrote:


>While there may be other reasons to choose not to clone a pet, the
>argument that the clone would not have the same personality is not
>entirely valid. The reasoning here being voiced here seems to be that
>personality is determined by experiences, but that is not completely
>true. Identical twins raised separately generally have many similar
>personality traits even though their experiences have been different.
>


I have met twins who are very different. One is more outspoken and one
is quite shy. Same genes, same basic upbringing.

But what I mean about the cats is that you can't possibly duplicate
the experiences of a cat or dog.

I have a wonderful sweet dog, but she was abused before I got her. I
can tell you that her personality and behavior would be completely
different if she had be raised in a good home to start with. She
wouldn't be spooky or shy. I can tell there is an alpha personality
below the surface.

We are a combination of genetics and experience, and there is no way
we can repeat the experiences. A cat who is agressive toward other
pets may be a sweetheart if they are the only pet in a house. Say you
have that sweeheart as a single pet, then clone that sweetheart and
add a few more pets. Suddenly, you have a very different cat.

But overall, I wouldn't want to be comparing all the time. I have
gotten another cat when I have senior cats, simply because I wanted to
know and love the new cat before losing the older cat. That way, they
not a replacement, but an individual.

yngver
September 28th 07, 09:23 PM
On Sep 27, 5:26 pm, Meghan Noecker > wrote:
>
> I have met twins who are very different. One is more outspoken and one
> is quite shy. Same genes, same basic upbringing.
>
> But what I mean about the cats is that you can't possibly duplicate
> the experiences of a cat or dog.
>
> I have a wonderful sweet dog, but she was abused before I got her. I
> can tell you that her personality and behavior would be completely
> different if she had be raised in a good home to start with. She
> wouldn't be spooky or shy. I can tell there is an alpha personality
> below the surface.
>
> We are a combination of genetics and experience, and there is no way
> we can repeat the experiences. A cat who is agressive toward other
> pets may be a sweetheart if they are the only pet in a house. Say you
> have that sweeheart as a single pet, then clone that sweetheart and
> add a few more pets. Suddenly, you have a very different cat.
>
> But overall, I wouldn't want to be comparing all the time. I have
> gotten another cat when I have senior cats, simply because I wanted to
> know and love the new cat before losing the older cat. That way, they
> not a replacement, but an individual.

Of course, studies of identical twins are based on large enough
numbers to be statistically meaningful. Also, I don't know whether
shyness is a genetic trait or a learned behavior. I know from my own
experience that it can be unlearned.

I suspect that those who would seek to clone their pets have somewhat
different motives than what many here seem to assume. I once had a
roommate whose beloved mixed breed dog was killed, and she sought only
to get another dog that would be as similar as possible to the dog she
had lost. She researched breeds and breed traits, and decided that a
Cairn Terrier looked and acted most like her dog. If cloning had been
available to her then, I imagine she would have wanted to try it. She
was not remotely interested in just picking another dog out from a
shelter.

I have also known people who thought their pet was so wonderful and
unique, they did seek to breed the pet to produce more like him/her.
In those cases, I think cloning might be the better option. Again,
these are not people who are going to take their chances at finding a
similar pet at a shelter.

I've loved all the cats I've had, but as with many people, there was
one who was special. After she died, I sure wished I could have had
one of her kittens. Genes *do* matter.
That's why purebred cats and dogs are bred not just for looks, but for
temperament and personality. Sometimes owners of purebred pets are
surprised to find that some mannerism they thought was unique to their
cat or dog was actually a breed trait.

Personally, I don't believe that the cloning of pets is ever really
going to affect the number of animals adopted from shelters, because
the people who are seeking to clone their pets aren't interested in
adopting from a shelter. They want another pet that is genetically
similar to the one they lost.
-yngver

Meghan Noecker
September 29th 07, 02:58 AM
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:23:55 -0700, yngver > wrote:


>
>I suspect that those who would seek to clone their pets have somewhat
>different motives than what many here seem to assume. I once had a
>roommate whose beloved mixed breed dog was killed, and she sought only
>to get another dog that would be as similar as possible to the dog she
>had lost. She researched breeds and breed traits, and decided that a
>Cairn Terrier looked and acted most like her dog. If cloning had been
>available to her then, I imagine she would have wanted to try it. She
>was not remotely interested in just picking another dog out from a
>shelter.
>

This is exactly the wrong reason to get another pet. Trying to replace
a previous pet only makes the expectations harder to fill.



>I have also known people who thought their pet was so wonderful and
>unique, they did seek to breed the pet to produce more like him/her.
>In those cases, I think cloning might be the better option. Again,
>these are not people who are going to take their chances at finding a
>similar pet at a shelter.

Again, trying to replace a specific pet is just a lost cause. The more
we try, the more fail. We set ourselves up to be disappointed by the
new pet.

>
>I've loved all the cats I've had, but as with many people, there was
>one who was special. After she died, I sure wished I could have had
>one of her kittens. Genes *do* matter.

Of course they matter. When I want a dog like a sheltie, I get a
sheltie. When I want a big fluffy easy going cat, I look for a Maine
Coon or a Ragdoll. But I do not pick one that looks just like my old
one because I am ot replacing a lost pet. I am gaining a new friend.

When somebody loses a child, getting pregnant again is not going to
remove the loss of the child that is gone. The genes are similar and
the looks and temperment may be similar, but the one that is gone is
still gone. We only mess ourselves up when we expect the new one to
replace the old one.


>That's why purebred cats and dogs are bred not just for looks, but for
>temperament and personality. Sometimes owners of purebred pets are
>surprised to find that some mannerism they thought was unique to their
>cat or dog was actually a breed trait.

Of course. That is why I pick a particular breed. Because of similar
temperment and behavior. I don't need a clone or relative of one cat
to find a "similar" pet. But I expect them to be different as well.

>
>Personally, I don't believe that the cloning of pets is ever really
>going to affect the number of animals adopted from shelters, because
>the people who are seeking to clone their pets aren't interested in
>adopting from a shelter. They want another pet that is genetically
>similar to the one they lost.


I agree there, but I think cloning is a complete waste of money, and
sets up the person to be unhappy, and is also unfair to the clone
since they will not live up to the expectations.

I am on a Ragdoll group and a lady recently joined, thrilled that she
had just adopted two Ragdoll wannabe kittens. A few weeks later, she
posted about how upset she was. The kittens were nothing like
Ragdolls. They were going to be shorthaired cats with slim oriental
bodies. Nothing like a big and fluffy Ragdoll.

She was excited about adopting a Ragdoll, she jumped at the first
thing she saw with the right color pattern, and then she insisted on
adopting them early, before the normal age. Then she complained that
they were nothing like she was looking for.

I also see people posting on craigslist looking for a pet that looked
just like their last one, and they don't realize that looks are not
the criteria they should be looking for. They need to find a good
temperment match.

Before I got Jay Jay, I was thinking my next cat would be a Maine Coon
because I love big and fluffy, and they sounded really nice and mild.
I ended up finding a cat at a cat show, being offered for adoption by
a local shelter. The cat was listed as a himilayan mix. It was almost
a year later, when I learned that he was a Ragdol. Big, fluffy, mild
temperment, just like a Maine Coon, just different color pattern.

At the time, I had no idea of that. He was listed as a mature adult,
so I had no idea that 12 lbs was not going to be his final weight, or
that he was going to thicken and lengthen a bit more. He had a very
mild look to him, and I talked to the shelter lady to make sure he
really was an easy going mild cat. I had a senior at the time as well
as a high stress kitty, so I knew I couldn't add another high stress
cat to my household. He was a perfect match for me and my crew.

He was not what I had in mind visually - silver or brown tabby. He was
a bluepoint. And he wasn't as big as I had wanted. He turned out to be
later, but I had no idea of that when I got him. It was his gentle
expression and reviewing his temperment with the foster lady that told
me he was the ideal cat for me.