No, really.
The shredding company came today, and they charge by the pound. We loaded about 2,000 pounds of paper onto the truck.
(P) I said a while ago that I was intrigued by a conversation about cloning I had with Adrian, Lauren, Eric, and Brad after seeing The Island and that I would learn more about it. Well, in the process of trying to become more learned about human cloning, I'm really not sure what the fuss is about. I understand there are several reasons to be hesitant or concerned. But none of them seem to have any particular uniqueness to cloning. They are essentially problems with medical research and human reproduction in general. Either overpopulation is a concern, or it's not. Either medical research that could be used for immoral ends should be banned, or it shouldn't (which is a completely separate issue from regulating the immoral act itself). Either parents have the right to bring a human being into existence under less than ideal circumstances, or they don't. Either people with identical DNA are completely independent, fully moral equivalents of a human being, or they aren't.
This last point is where Adrian had a really intriguing perspective I had never encountered; namely, that somehow the definition of a person is their genetic code. In other words, you cheapen their humanity by copying their DNA. I can see how an English major could be troubled by that lack of originality, but I don't see either 1) why it's a valid criteria (as opposed to other "arbitrary" criteria, like having two arms or being able to read music or whatever), or 2) how it fits with the real world (namely, the fact that identical twins are genetic doubles). To be crude, the point of two humans procreating is to pass on the best DNA possible; wouldn't cloning be the pinnacle of human development?
The only explanations I can really find for widespread uneasiness surrounding human cloning is cultural conditioning and unfamiliarity with the processes (after all, people take time to adapt to new devices and ideas). Of course there are alarmists, the same people who would ban cars, fission, meat, and/or globalization and think that SARS/bird flu/killer bees/asteroids/gay pride/etc will kill all mankind in 3 to 6 months. But short of a sci-fi worst-case scenario, it doesn't seem like there's much more to cloning than any other previous topic of contemporary controversy settled by the passage of time.
The sure outcome of US bans on research into human cloning is simply likely to be the further erosion of US leadership and its associated prosperity. Just like with stem cell research and atomic research and countless others, the top scientists will study where they're welcomed, to the detriment of the unwelcoming country.
Meanwhile, if you are concerned about philosophical ideas of fairness or practical concerns about human suffering, try worrying about slightly bigger issues like access to basic food, shelter, and medical care or the wrongs of the drug war, military occupations, torture, corruption, bribery, uggs and mini skirts......
8 comments:
Nate,
I think I was there too for that discussion!
Anyway, I think what you're missing is that complete human cloning (a walking/talking human) provides no real benefits to existing humans, and until it does, no matter how a single person may feel, the entire country as a whole will not allow it, nor should it. This country's slow acceptance of current stem cell research is happening only because more and more people are realizing the medical benefits that will result from it, even if others think it immoral. The debate is so hot because its about balancing the pros and cons of the issue. With cloning, however, there are no pros, just cons. With no pros, there is no debate. In order words, just because we can, does not mean we should. Concerning social/moral issues, we shouldn't be worried about US prosperity. Instead, we should be worried about providing a good example for the rest of the world.
I would argue that there is nothing wrong with research for research's sake, as long as it does not involve killing or hurting a human being, The seemingly useless electron needed to be discovered before the pace-maker was invented.
I would also argue that most of the cons associated with cloning stem from (dare I use that verb?) science-fiction. If these stories are all we know about cloning, then of course people will have fears or anxieties about it. But when cloning begins, and I'm confident that someday it will, it will be nothing like in the movies, and just like all other major scientific discoveries, there will be plenty of benefits from it.
And yes, Brad was there for the discussion too.
ok, my bad...that's what I get for trying to remember everybody in a conversation from three months ago. My point was that I said I would look into the matter and report back :)
Anyway, it was a fun discussion, and personally, I think that we'll be about as concerned about cloning in 50 years as we are of IVF or email today.
There's a reason I was a business major. The state doesn't get to decide (generally) whether there are "pros" and "cons" to things; the market handles that just fine. If there really were no pros, there would be no need for US legislation, because no scientist would want to do any research. That desire by private actors proves, by definition, that somebody thinks something good could happen from research on human cloning.
Eric--At what point do you consider a living organism to be a human being?
Charles
Charles-- I think the question should be "When is an organism living?" And in terms of a cloned organism, I'll admit that the jury is still out deciding that for me.
I think origin of life questions are really interesting.
We essentially are dealing with Creation itself. Do we dare take actions that affect the natural order of things?
I'm very comfortable taking actions that affect life, and that's a wholistic view. I think part of being made in the image of God is the ability (and responsibility) to create and destroy. Some people seem to think technology that saves a low-birth weight or premature baby is good but technology that allows for the prevention of pregnancy or the termination of a fetus is bad. Some people think quadruplets are cute but cloning is wrong. To me, piecemeal positions aren't persuasive. Either you support an individual's right to do things artificially, or you don't. The difficulty in defining a "moment" when strands of DNA become an independent person (or even the struggle to define what a human is) suggests to me that the best solution given the available data is to let individuals make their own decisions. Otherwise, we need to drastically alter our legal system, from how old people are to concepts of property rights to prosecuting women for negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter as roughly 1 out of every 4 women has an abortion (spontaneous abortions are commonly referred to as miscarriages).
Of course, the danger of people like me is of becoming too relativistic--but that's the separation between libertarians and anarchists. It's always vague and fluid.
Nate--Your last post was positively Halloweenish!
Like The Matrix or Soylent Green!
I would suppose you and Eric both wouldn't have much to say about humans being human at the moment of conception?
Well, I take that back. I'm sure Nate will.
Charles
It is that time 'o year...but to keep from being long-winded, let me just say that because I think this is an interesting issue doesn't mean I think I have the answers. I'm not even sure there is "one" answer.
My concern is first making sure there is a high threshhold before the state intervenes in what should be private affairs of individual, family, community, and religion. Secondly, it's important for arguments based on principle to be applied consistently, otherwise there's no warrant to back up the claim; for example, if the specific claim that destroying embryos is bad rests on the principle that embryos are people, then our legal and medical systems should treat them as such.
Post a Comment