Any arguments against human cloning?
I can't think of a single reasonable argument against human cloning. I can't even come close. The best I can come up with is "It would be a big waste of money." Which, I guess, vanity cloning would be a big waste of money. But so are a million other things.
Has anyone heard any good arguments against human cloning?
posted by Nate at 12:00 PM
3 Comments:
There are arguments floating around invoking the precautionary principle, I think. They basically say that cloning could (or that it likely will) have profound and far-reaching effects that we are unable to predict or fully take into account. If you type "arguments against cloning" into google, the first page that comes up (not that I have any idea whether sensible and informed people are behind it) argues along these lines: evidence from animal cloning suggests that human clones will likely experience major health problems that might take years to become apparent; that interacting with clones may have detrimental psychological effects on those cloned and their families and friends; and (perhaps the least convincing of the three) that the technology could fall into the wrong hands. I'm not actually endorsing any of these, mainly because I'm greatly underinformed on the topic, but I think that, just maybe, there are sensible (read: non-theological, compatible with a naturalistic worldview) arguments to be made.
I dunno, maybe somebody else can up come with some stronger arguments.
CT
3:02 PM
We simply cannot proceed with human cloning until we are fully prepared to fend off the resultant soulless zombie uprising.
1:54 PM
I realized after I wrote the post that being in general favor of human cloning (or at least not caring one way or the other) is so self-evident to me that I have no strength to argue it.
2:16 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home