Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Sad Crazy People

I love dogs. I am big dog person. I have a dog, and I love my dog.

But this story makes me sad. It also makes me want to come to that woman's house and yell, "ARE YOU F^&*NG CRAZY! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?"

To sell a house, and pay for five cloned dogs $50,000. Has anybody explained to that stupid stupid old lady, that despite the genetic makeup, IT'S NOT THE SAME DOG! IT WILL NEVER BE THE SAME DOG!

God, almighty. There are so many dogs in the world that need a shelter, and a loving owner. But no, we can not have the usual tried and true, we need to have a sensation.

I can understand growing dogs with selective genetic makeup, we've been selecting plants and animals for their traits since the caves. Building a dog for its likeness to the pooch you used to have, is wrong. Find a breeder, there must be plenty of similar pooches ready for a new home.

Or maybe it was a scam. Or a joke. I hope this was a joke.

Pardon the rant.

3 comments:

Jason said...

Hm. Here's an interesting new development in this story:

http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/2008/08/mormon-manacler-re-emerges.htm

Obviously, this woman has a history of, shall we say, poor judgment.

I think as far as people mistakenly believing that a clone is the same animal (or person, when we to that point) as the genetic donor, we can blame decades of poorly researched science-fiction movies that always depicted clones as evil duplicates of our hero or whatever. Yeah, a clone might look the same, but it's no more "the same" than a twin sibling would be. It is a different creature, with its own thoughts and experiences...

The fact that so many people misunderstand that annoys me too...

Kisintin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kisintin said...

Indeed!

I still don't know if it would so much fun to live in the galaxy far-far-away, for an average Joe.

It does raise the old time argument of nature vs nurture. With more cloning under way, it would be interesting to see which idea would come out on top.
Which of the trades are inherent, which are not, and which parent's DNA is predominant.

In this case certainly not the mother, since they only act as the incubator.