>>1881288>They have pretty much the same genetics, save for random mutations.no, they have exactly identical genetics. if you get cut, and your wound heals, would you say that your scar has different genetics than the rest of you? no, because it's cloned tissue that your body created. it's the exact same tree, you simply have a preconceived notion of what a "tree" looks like, and so interpret the clonal extension as a separate entity, when it is in fact not.
>That doesn't mean that if you cut the roots and transplant an individual tree, that it can't grow completely independently of the colony.that is completely irrelevant to the definition of an organism, which is as follows:
"or·gan·ism
/ˈôrɡəˌnizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form."
if you cut a part of a tree off and graft it to another tree, it is not a part of the original organism. if you cut an entire clonal extension off and replant it, it is not part of the original organism. if you leave the branch/tree attached, it is part of the same organism.
>There are lots of organisms that reproduce asexually except they cut the umbilical cord. Earthworms, for example. What kind of sociopath justifies mutilating an earthworm by saying, "oh, it has the same genetics as a hundred other worms in the ground, so it's not actually alive?"once the cord is cut between the earthworm and the clonal extension, they are two separate organisms. how one justifies mutilating something is based on the individual. the question of morality when it comes to cloning is often explored in science fiction and philosophy, i suggest you look in those realms if you wish to find answers others have come up with.
