Hacker News Reader

Unless there was evidence to show that a particular clone was bad for you (to eat) why wouldn't you eat it?

You trust 'natural selection' more than 'attempted perfect clone'... why?

It's one of those things, where you prefer things as they are. The same reason why people prefer organic food over BT or processed food.

Agreed that both probably have an equal chance of harming you, but the reason is more psychological than rational.

Your premise seems to be that if the natural born animal is ok to eat, then the clone of it is ok to eat. On the other hand, if the survival rate of clones is less than natural born, doesn't that imply that the two aren't exactly equal?

The survival rate is different because of the way they blastocysts have to be implanted. We have no reason to presuppose that cloned animals will present more risk to eat than bred animals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com