And lifts this one too.
Let's face it. Some day, there will
be a clone of a human, if there's not already.
The arguments against
cloning, in my view, are actually invalid. There are several main arguments, one of the more promenant being that the results will be genetic "monstrosities" or horribly misdeveloped. If that is the case, then there really is no problem. Regular cloning won't happen, because scientist/cloners will not want this type of result. They just won't do it. No restrictions needed.
Another argument is against having an "identical you." As someone mentioned earlier, that won't happen. You would not only have to clone the physiology of the person, but the environment as well. Right down to the number of cloudy days and unexpected loud noises. Couldn't be done.
Playing god is another argument, but that one isn't valid for many reasons. Scientifically speaking, it is entirely invalid. Even if one buys into the whole faith meme, there are still theological reasons why it's invalid. In at least three religious documents used by the world's major religions, it mentions man being created in a diety's "image." That, in itself, would indicate that it is acceptable to take on "god-like" qualities in order to maintain and improve the human condition. Fundamentalists no doubt would fume at that statement, but it is valid none the less. Throughout history, man's attempts to improve the human condition and general knowledge have been considered "playing god," such as medical advances in surgery, blood transfusion, and family planning. Also in areas of science such as astronomy, biology, and nuclear chemistry.
Michael Shermer at
said, "the soul of science is found in courageous thought and creative experiment, not in restrictive fear and prohibitions." I have to agree, otherwise we would still subscribe to the religious poppycock that the Sun orbits the Earth.