People were always fighting against nature, trying to prove that they are smarter, more powerful and are God-alike overall. Yet, in the 21st century we keep on suffering from the consequences of previous fights and, nevertheless, are still creating some new ways to show some of our more specific than only natural abilities.
After we crashed the natural feeling of space with all our television and internet, we are trying to rethink one of the most important and basic natural parts of ours. We are trying to change the experience and understanding of our body. With cloning, this question takes new perspective, because now it is not only about virtual bodies and their wide spread all over items of our use, but it is turning to our real, essential bodies, from where we are coming to the world as real human beings.
It is worth to mention and to be remembered by scientists that some specific connection of cells get to form a human being only with full bodily experience from the very beginning of life. The definition of human being includes social, natural, cultural and other aspects of our life.
Cloning in some ways wants to change a little bit this kind of human identity.
Let’s think about what the defenders of cloning have to offer. They say that cloning will help us solve such problems as: procreative liberty (everyone will have a chance to give birth to their genetically related child), cure yet not curable illnesses (for example, the concept of a “savior sibling”) or even “replace” a deceased child (when parents clone the child that has died from some illness or will die soon just to replace it).
At first, you may think that cloning is the best way to solve our reproductive and all the other medical problems. But it seems that, on the other hand, cloning itself promotes some hardly solvable issues that cannot beat the whole profit from its implementation. For example, the concept of “savior sibling” will lead to underestimation of every new baby women give birth to. Parents will start to make some sort of selection between babies. If the child is born with some defects, they may just replace it with an ideal clone. Moreover, they may even clone famous artists so that they will have children looking like pop-stars.
The thing is that those problems are hard to solve in one way, because these are mainly the questions of ethics. Using the most common division of cloning perspective, we can either talk about ethical and other questions both in reproductive cloning or cloning for the research and treatment. In the nearest future the latter will beat all the arguments against it and start to provide cloning treatment and improve our understanding of physiological processes in body. In some way it is not harmful for society, but it can lead to negative consequences.
For example, it can increase social inequality. Only rich people will be able to provide themselves with new cloned organs and live longer. At the same time, poor people will get angrier and organize strikes, manifestations and revolutions.
However, the main attention of the most of debaters is still paid to the first type of cloning, the reproductive one. Although it is said to solve most of nowadays problems connected to our bodies and medicine, it is not in all aspects humanistic and at some point it is observed only from one side.
If you think about a child that is born as a result of cloning, you will probably get to think that it does not have such experience in life as others. It knows what it will look like in adulthood or whatever the age of the cloned person was. It will define and understand itself differently from a natural-way produced child, and this difference in the experiences is quite important, because most of our values and life-decisions are created and shaped depending on our previous experience. With the lack of normal personal experience, which Heidager called “Dasein”, we are not able to define ourselves as a human being, keeping the complete meaning of the earlier mentioned definition.
People should know that they will die. Sooner or later it is going to happen, and no one, no religion and even no doctor can make you live forever. That is why cloning with one of its attempts to make us live in every time recreating bodies has its opponents as well as alternative thoughts and theories.
Imagine the world where one can recreate and live for as many years as they want only having the needed amount of money. Isn’t it unnatural and kind of racist, but not in the term of the race but in the term of money? Only people with money can repair their bodies, like some kinds of machines. Also, there appears a question about approving human intervention into the natural processes: is it needed? Can people recreate themselves without help of the nature every person is a part of?
As we keep on looking for freedom in our lives, the question of cloning can be raised only in individual situations, so that the society will not tell everyone what to do, as well as not everyone will be forced to procreate in such ways: it will be a matter of their will. Anyway, everything is the question of humans choice, so why not give one new choice to them? Everyone should get they right to refuse, but first of all they should learn how to think critically and then decide whether cloning is needed or they would rather adopt a new child from the shelter.
Still, we should keep in mind that fighting with nature means fighting with ourselves and we cannot do this for too long.