read up on stem cells.

basically, during our embryo stage, all cells are the same, there is no brain cell/muscle cell/skin cell etc. there is just cell. with the correct signals, these cells undergo specialization to be come whatever cell needed. theoretically (practically??) all you need is to get some stem cells, put them in a lab environment, provide nutrient, input signal, and viola - new organ then put in patient

Fourthly, by creating clones for therapeutic purposes, we're pushing the allowance of bad genes further. As it is now, with modern medical facilities, we as humans have already done everything we can to avoid the pressure from natural selection. When we are sick, we see the doctor, get the cure and we continue to live. In nature, an animal that suffers from a disease (and if it's antibody does cannot fight away the disease) will die and thus those genes that cannot tolerate that disease would not be passed on to the next generation. We, on the other hand, defy natural selection and continue to past those bad genes to the next generation. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what we are doing. We as humans, are different from animals, because we are (or are supposed to be) morally higher than animals, and therefore, out of compassion, we save our fellow human being from death. But would it be right to go to that extent to avoid death? Should we do it until we risk overpopulation?

What you say makes some sense. Yes, the rich are, in a way, the best in acquiring wealth. But then again it's hard to say that the rich have the best genes. Maybe it's intelligence, which is in inherited. But so many other things have to be taken into consideration. Upbringing also plays a part in determining one's future. And I wouldn't say that children born in the richest families have the best upbringing. For example, some people are born into riches but die in poverty because they do not know how to manage their riches.

Furthermore, a person can be rich by winning a lottery, or through a stroke of luck, become rich. For example, if you happen to inherit a piece of cheap land from your parents and keep it, and 30 years down the road, the government plans to build something big there, and is willing to compensate you with many zeros on a cheque. Well, then you've just hit the jackpot. Although it's rare, it happens. But this doesn't mean the person is in anyway, genetically superior to another.

Besides, the trend shows that the human population has been increasing exponentially in the last century. Why the last century? It coincides with the improvement of medical knowledge and techniques to an extent such that the number of births can exceed the number of deaths in the human population by a large ratio. If cloning were to be allowed, these people would make the human population increase even further than without cloning, because at any one time, those who are cloned will continue to live way beyond their years and when birth rate stays the same (if we assume that cloning has no effect on the present birth rate), the total number of humans will increase. And if the therapeutic cloning and organ transplant procedure becomes more affordable over time (say due to breakthroughs or the discovery of new medical methods), the rate of increase will also increase.

Ultimately, when overpopulation occurs, and if we don't find a solution (to overpopulation) by then, we would have to face the full force of natural selection, because it would then be a competition for inadequate resources. Therefore, I think it would be wise to postpone (if stopping is not an option) the usage of therapeutic cloning until we find a solution to overpopulation.

i don't think we could achieve immortality by "uploading our mind" into new bodies. imo, even if we can recreate our mind in another form, like digitally for example, it wouldn't really be ours, it's merely a copy of our memory while our true consciousness will always bound to our self. when we die, our consciousness ends there. the copied memory will be another version of our consciousness once transferred to another body, unnoticeable to the clone, but our own original self (the consciousness) stay dead and won't be transferred to the other body. in other word, it's not a continuous process.

even if the clones retains the memory of the original person, i don't think we should think of him as the same person as the original.

err i dunno. depends on what your intention for the transfer i think. anyways notice that in my first post that you quoted, i was speaking on "even if" basis as a reply to robertngo regarding his idea of achieving immortality by preserving memories in clones. all of that is still sci-fi in today's context. also i think he speak of cloning as reproducing the exact copy of the body at time of cloning, not creating a baby clone from the DNA that needs to be grown to adulthood so the issue of when to transfer the memory doesn't exist. you just transfer them instantly after death of the original. again, it's still sci-fi in today's context.