"God does not place dice", said a great man once (Einstein on the subject of chance). What about dice when man plays god? Even though cloning of mammals from fetal cell has been going on for over twenty years, Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute sparked a revolution when he cloned Dolly, using the nucleus from the cell of an adult sheep that had died three years earlier. The first time that a genetically identical mammal had been created from an adult cell. Anyhow, Wilmut is against the cloning of humans due to the high failure rate. It took the Roslin institute 277 tries to succeed with dolly. But then that is in the realms of a medical laboratory.



What is it that pricks the conscience of the common man? First of all it clashes with the beliefs of nearly every predominant religion which holds life as sacred. Being able to clone even something as unassuming as human cells and tissues for research questions the role of god and is deemed unethical due to that very reason. More morbid visions include those of farms where humans are "cultivated" in the search for better and stronger life or merely as brainless organ donors. Labs where babies are cloned for childless couples. But then how is it that despite all these drawbacks, governments are giving the go ahead to various research centers. One of the most publicized event is when on December 19, 2000, at the behest of Prime Minister Tony Blair, the British Parliament passed legislation to allow the cloning of human beings under the strict provision that ALL of these cloned human beings MUST be killed.



Certain scientists (pro lifers tend to term all such people as eugenicists or people who believe that only people with a better life quality than others should be allowed to live) feel that if cloning is allowed up to the extent of cloning tissues, cells and DNA it could be beneficial to humans. They say this in the context of finding cures for diseases, which have previously alluded us. But then again what guarantees are we assured of that this won't escalate into a full-fledged production of human clones? After all if history has taught us anything it is this that humans tend to exploit and ravage any new idea till they have drained it of all its productivity. Then we latch onto something new to satisfy our hunger for dominance. A parasitic sort of existence.



Its pessimistic to dismiss all advances in the field of cloning just because you've seen a couple of horror films that show clones going berserk and killing everybody. Given the reign and kept within the confines of humanitarian laws, we could well be on our way to finding cures for diseases that have plagued us for so long. Is it really that simple because it's a well known fact that laws have a tendency to bend and twist when they chances upon power and the big greens.



With growing concern over the decadence of human morality, we are faced with a future where ethics have become a subject of situational debate and where the opinion of those who matter is buried under the pretext of advancing science. What place then for a god when we can manufacture and assign bar codes to humans. Or for that matter, just pull the plug.



{{This is what "ALOQUE" had to say}}:

if i had to save my mother with a cloned heart transplant, i would.

when we made medicines, did we intend for some people to use them as poison, to use viruses as weapons of mass destruction?

when we discovered fire, did we give precedence to arsonists? when we built the world wide web, did we make it for psycho stalkers or peverse pedophiles?

there are always going to be sick self involved bastards in this world. does this mean that all progress has to take them into consideration? aren't more lives benefitting from progress rather than losing out?

however, cloning entire beings reflects an extreme that should not be pursued out of pure curiosity. as long as progress is aimed at making better, the problems we have, its justified.
its not up to us to make a genetically being who might end up just as twisted as any other person out there.

[Posted by aloque on Monday May 24, 2004 at 2:55 pm]

{{This is what "JLU" had to say}}

pro lifers tend to term all such people as eugenicists or people who believe that only people with a better life quality than others should be allowed to live I haven't considered myself to be a pro-lifer neither have I known this term 'eugenicist' - but after reading the above, I fear what a 'eugenicist' could do. We already see the world tilted heavily in favor of the so-called 'special' or 'gifted' individuals...... all rules framed to benefit them at the cost of the other not-so-privileged majority. Maybe I'm just viewing the issue from my ideological persepective...... instead of taking a constructive attitude. But, well, all kinds make this world (diversity)..... at least till 'eugenicis'(??) takes over and becomes the order of the day, when the world will have only the best and the super best.

PS - Glad to be participating in this discussion :) AR, why do you have to maintain that other blog? :D

[Posted by JLU on Saturday May 29, 2004 at 10:49 am

Current Mood: Thoughtful
Current Music: Still wondering