system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
If a cloned organ starts off as "old" as the original cells used for the cloning and with the same accumulated damage to the DNA and shortened telomeres, then shouldn't we be preserving our DNA as soon as possible?

Wouldn't that ensure the "youngest" possible cloned organs for ourselves when the technology becomes viable in the future to extend our lives in such ways?

In other words, let's say I am in my 20's now, wouldn't I want to preserve my DNA as soon as possible so that if the technology to clone your own organs becomes viable in the next 40 years, then when I'm 80 with liver failure I can have a "younger" liver regenerated using my 20-year-old DNA rather than an "older" liver regenerated using my then 80-year-old DNA? 

Could stem cells help mitigate the above?
gpt
Theoretically that would be ideal as your DNA will have accumulated less mutations. A mutation in a part of the genome that a tissue doesn't use has no effect but try using that DNA to recreate another tissue, you might run into a problem

Couple options would be to preserve when younger. Another would be to take a few samples of various tissue in respect to what you want cloned

As for telomeres, although we don't have the natural ability to regenerate our end strands, plants do. It's not farfetched to think you if you're able to clone a tissue, you can use plant enzyme/ insert the gene to add that function. It's one of the reason we age, while oxidative stress is another primary factor (plants are much better at neutralizing super oxides then we are)

These possibilities will come from more somatic stem cell research which faces it's own technical and funding problems vs embryonic stem cell research which is more of a ethical problem holding it back.