Cloning as a Philosophical Aid
(Up to: Scribblings Philosophy )
December 27th, 2002. The Raelian sect, believers in life created from aliens, announce that thet have produced the world's first human clone, a baby firl called Eve.
Amidst the allegations of publicity stunts and the clamours of jealousy, the essential points remain well hidden. The public look on as yet another shock! front page! story! wash over them. For once, the scientists and the religious unite in their claims of ungodliness and immorality. THe future is here. Or is it?
Or, more importantly, does it matter. If, after extensive testing, even unto the point of irrefutable evidence (and oh how that will be refuted), it is finally proved that the Raelians have succeeded, or if it turns out after all that it was purely to promote their own cause (which, personally, I doubt), then either way we're still just facing the inevitable. The Guardian article linked to above quotes Patrick Dixon: "There's a global race by maverick scientists to produce clones, motivated by fame, money and warped and twisted beliefs." which may well be true for the majority (thanks, in part, to the industrialisation of just about all areas of research now), but fails to take into account the minority that still make technological progress purely out of curiosity, a drive other than, and far more powerful, than greed for recognition or power. Science, by its nature and its definition, is inevitable. The point of this Thought is to investigate a possible and, indeed, probable course that a clone-entailing future may take.
Cloning is here, and it is coming. Fortunately, it bears all the factors common to just about any new technology introduced ever - as yet imperfect, but applicable in many situations, and misunderstood in terms of both how it works, and what it has to offer. From this, it garners an audience that, as with empirical reasoning, industrial advances and common-sense philosophies, quickly and thoughtlessly condemns it on the grounds of being different. And it is for this reason that I hold cloning to be A Good Thing.
(Pause for reader to contemplate stopping reading. Realises reader is now biased towards rest of Thought.)
I shall bother with neither explaining what the technology does, how it works, nor listing the arguments pro and con that are commonly represented by public view, save in summary to dismiss them. Firstly, the technology that would today be used to create a clone is a far cry away from any epitome technology that people have in their minds, i.e. science fiction led perfect reporuction apparatus, capable of spawning a thousand instant copies in under a minute. Secondly, to reiterate the arguments put forward since the idea of cloning originated would be a waste of time, and the reader can happily google for these on a rainy day.
So to summarise the cons. The vast majority of views against, including that adopted by mostly-sane governments as they hastily assemble prohibitive legislature, take the form of "Man shouldn't play God", that it is somehow unholy to dip our fingers into the fates that until now we have only taken for granted, and assumed (under the guise of inconceivable entities) to be unreachable, and that due to its unobtainable status, such is the way things shall always be. The second most popular and, in my view, infinitely more sensible reasoning is the realisation of the limits of the current technology, that it is not perfect and may lead to unnecessary suffering later on in the clone's life. Further anti-cloning arguments, such as population over-crowding and fascist armies of superbeings bear little or no rationale and as such won't be entertained here. Maybe another time.
And the pros. These seem to carry a bit more weight, but no more time will be spent on them here. Most of those claiming the benefits of cloning put forward theses for medical transplants, improvements to otherwise incapacitated of nature, such as terminal illnesses. This, at least partly, recognises that those who argue for a God-driven nature also believe that remedy and relief should be confined to a realm in which man can only create external influences to be combat ills. This argument also extends to allowing people to experience events that they wouldn't normally be able to, such as producing babies despite infertility.
What the latter set of arguments fail to understand is the difference between curative and preventative medicine. In the short term, as the technology still undergoes problems, the most common and profound use would perhaps be for custom-made body part replacements that wouldn't be refused by the host body. As it progressed, and the understanding of both the mechanisms of the human system, and the cloning system improved, this may tend towards a more preventative approach, in that the underlying foundations leading to trouble could be fortified artificially. However, the drawback is that focus is removed from any other triggers, and the side-effects of those factors. For an extreme example (pandering to the obligatory fictional scaremongering), imagine all people were born with smoke-resistant lungs, so that they could live and work within fossil-fuel powered environments. Everyone within that population may be considerably healthier in that respect, but the emphasis on the effect of the fossil-fuels on the environment itself would be less noticed.
But pure digressionary tactics.
What I hope to put forth next is a different argument for the cloning process. I hesitate to call it a "greater" argument, or a "more important" one, due to the relativity of the terms. However it is one, the seeds of which have already been planted, and that manifest themselves in the fears put forwards by the scared masses. Yes, it tends to address the first arguments given by anti-cloning soothsayers, and yes, it could be perceived as simply as an adaptation of that which is applicable to other progressive technologies. And yes, it has most likely to have been put forward before. But I have not heard of it, and I figure it can be no bad thing if it is made more than once anyway.
There is no more embittered, long-lasting battle of wits as that between religion and science, which is what makes this entire situation so much more ironic than most other advances in any field. On one hand you have a sect, a religion, a church if you will, claiming that they have successfully applied the technology brought forwards by scientists, and on the other hand you have both the scientists and the religious (let us call them the "followers") condemning the claims, albeit possibly for different reasons. So where does the line between religion and science lie now? Or between faith and reason?
And so to the hypothesis, one which won't be very well received due to its nature and the nature of those it applies to.
I propose that cloning is the latest, and most clear cut example of "de-religionising" the human race. Throughout its entire history, mankind has constantly sought a way to explain the world in which it finds itself. This has evolved into two distinctive parts - those of religion and science, the former characterised by a solid belief in a particular idea formed by legendry, the advocates of which adhere to with a vice-like baby's grip, whilst the former entertains new ideas and new ways of thinking based on the ever-twisted path of discovery. Popular religion has reached a stale dogma in which new philosophies are only accepted through a subtle infusion without the scope of its awareness, such as the acceptance of a speherical world. Everything else that otherwise challenges the existing beliefs is unaccepted and actively refuted. The most recent and most prominent example, thanks to its anti-appeal to the fundamentals that religions are based upon, yet that remain in even the most atheist of us, is the cloning process.
Therefore, assuming the inevitability of a progressive future, we should not be so eagerly outspoken to avoid eye contact with what we know can, and what we fear does exist. Such a feat in engineering should not just be recognised, but only through this recognition can it be accepted responsibly by those who should hold some watch over its usage. Banning a technology does not uninvent it, as Prometheus prompted. Sitting afraid in Ivory Towers claiming the moral high ground is rapidly becoming an excuse to ignore a reality, one that could easily become corrupted if not given the correct place in society.
The long-term side-effect of this would be a revolution far greater than any industrial or networked one. By accepting such truths, the world takes one step closer to a world without fearful religions, a world that seeks not to define itself in terms of beliefs embedded in medaeval reasoning and prehistoric logic, but one that looks to the future rather than the past, and embraces it with mature social responsibility to hand.
(See also: The Fundamentals Of Human Design )
