Obviously a clone of someone will (should?) only look like the person, but could have a totally different personality due to a different upbringing and environment, but it seems people want to do it anyway...
While what makes someone who they are isn't just their DNA, it is a very significant part. I'd argue perhaps up to ~50% of our personality is shaped by our genetics. To your point our memories and experiences will obviously be different, but we have reason to believe how we behave in scenarios is very significantly influenced by our genetics.
Do you mean genetics, per se, or biology more generally like epigenetic factors and prenatal/early childhood development? If the latter, then I think 50% is rather low.
I’d like to add that genetics provide the “base layer” of our personality—traits like innate boldness or social tendencies. But it’s the life experiences, environment, and emotional journeys that layer on top like specific colors and textures on a canvas. For example, even two people with identical genetics can end up with very different behavioral patterns, values, or worldviews if they grow up in different environments (such as variations in upbringing, cultural context, or major life events). In other words, genetics and experience together shape who we are.
This scientist cloned fat levels in muscle flesh, not identical, but trending to a type. Exercise and diet would change how fat marbled meat presented.
As humans could...
Edit: This article did however give some good answers, after first going all out on a dire description of future illegal organ donor markets.
"How would organ cloning work? Say you had a failing liver and you needed a replacement. Doctors couldn’t remove your liver and clone a new one and you couldn’t take The Island route (see Chapter 10.1007/978-3-662-43526-7_3) and use your clone’s organs—scientifically this might be feasible, but ethically it’s a no go. Instead, doctors would use stem cells. Stem cells are perfect for organ cloning because they can differentiate into more than 200 types of cells. Scientists extract these stem cells (Fig. 4.2) when an embryo consists of around 150 cells. Unfortunately, removing the stem cells effectively destroys the embryo, which is why many oppose this practice."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7122979/
That some people should oppose destroying mere embryos with just 150 or so cells for a procedure that can save many many thousands of fully developed, real human lives is beyond stupid.
_elephant•8mo ago