This article discusses the ethical and social issues that could arise from the development of human cloning technology. It warns of the dangers of human cloning, explaining the risks of the technology, the human rights issues of cloned humans, and the alternative of embryonic stem cell research.
What if, one day, a person identical to you stood in front of you and said, “You’re fake, and I’m real!” You may be reading this and thinking, “What kind of absurdity is that?” But this story is far from absurd and far-fetched. Our technology is already on the verge of human cloning success, with only one or two more steps to go before we can clone a human being. This is not something the public should take lightly. And I’m going to use this article to argue that we should never develop human cloning technology.
Have you ever seen the movie “The Sixth Day?” It’s a cautionary tale that illustrates many of the problems that could arise if human cloning technology is developed, such as the situation I described at the beginning of this article. Forces emerge to exploit the technology for personal and corporate gain, and as they take control of the technology, society is disrupted and a number of ethical value confusions and problems emerge. The ripple effect of these problems is significant, and it makes you realize that there are dangers that can lead a nation to its own destruction.
However, despite the myriad dangers of this technology, scholars have argued that it can bring tremendous benefits to society and the public if used properly. Although research on human cloning technology is currently banned in Korea, many people strongly argue that human cloning technology should be realized for the development of biotechnology, and the debate is still active to this day. In this essay, I will argue that human cloning research should never be allowed to proceed because of the serious consequences it would bring to society.
Before I get into my argument, I want to clarify what I mean by “human cloning” in this article. Human cloning is “the reproduction of a human embryo, which is the state of cell division after the fertilization of a sperm and egg but before it develops into a fetus, to produce a succession of human beings with the same genes. In a broader sense, cloning methods that use undifferentiated tissues or cells, such as embryonic stem cells, can also be included, but the human cloning technology I’m talking about in this article is the technology that uses the human adult body itself to clone an intact individual for any purpose, and I will argue against it.
First of all, human cloning technology should not be developed because it devalues human beings and causes confusion about the value of life. Every human being has an inestimable value that cannot be measured by their mere existence. Each person is unique and different from others, and therefore has a special value. However, if human cloning technology is developed and introduced into our society, it is very likely that the inherent value of human life as a precious life will gradually fade and become instrumental. Since human cloning will be selective for the purpose, we will always want to clone humans who can perform well and efficiently. So the intrinsic value of human beings will gradually fade, and we will literally see them as a part of society, as a tool. This, coupled with a widespread attitude of “if this person dies, we can just clone him or her,” will lead to a serious disregard for life, as people are seen as replaceable, as products that can be manufactured. Societies that have always valued all life will be disrupted by the instrumentalization and devaluation of human life.
Furthermore, if human cloning technology emerges, it is very likely that it will be used for commercial or personal gain, which will have a negative impact on society. Because human cloning technology can selectively take genes to create cloned humans, companies, governments, and others will want to use it to obtain highly skilled laborers, which means that it is likely to be used inappropriately for immoral and exploitative purposes by various groups or individuals. In fact, if you look at movies like The Sixth Day, which is about human cloning, you can see that when people start to use human cloning technology for commercial purposes, it’s a recipe for disaster, as the technology starts to be abused and confused by the public, and it starts to have a negative impact on society as a whole. In order for human cloning technology to shine, it must be used strictly for the public good and for the development of society, but human greed is not easy to control, so there will always be someone somewhere who will use this technology for their own benefit, and there is a risk that this will cause very serious social imbalance and chaos.
And if human cloning technology is developed and a cloned human being is created, it is very likely that his human rights will be violated and the dignity of human life will be undermined, so human cloning technology should not be realized. If a human being is cloned for the purpose of organ transplantation, tissue transplantation, etc., his birth will not be treated as an end in itself, but as a means to obtain other benefits. In other words, the human rights of cloned human beings will be neglected. The fact that “all human beings should have their human rights equally guaranteed” is one of the most important ethical underpinnings of modern society, and the development and use of cloned human technology would put their human rights in grave danger. In addition, cloned human beings would be deprived of what the German ecological philosopher Jonas calls their “right to an open future. Cloned humans have no human rights at all, because all of their congenital conditions are already determined, and they live to be instrumentalized. For example, physicists around the world are struggling with the limits of physics research, so to solve this problem, they cloned a new human being using Einstein’s genes. The resulting cloned human would be used as a tool for physics research, and his innate genes and the rest of his life would be locked away to be utilized for the purpose of cloning. From the moment human cloning technology begins to be utilized, society’s view of cloned humans will change from “human beings equal to us” to “tools,” and their human rights will be fatally compromised. Their human rights violations will eventually disrupt society’s values about human rights and lead to a growing disregard for life as a whole. In this way, many ecological philosophers, not just Jonas, have expressed concern about the closed future of human beings that human cloning technology will bring.
Human cloning technology should also never be practiced because of the great risks involved. Since human cloning technology does not follow the normal fertilization process, but uses a physical method (electrical impulses) to fertilize an egg and transfer genetic traits to a somatic cell, there is a very high probability that mutations will occur in the process, which is inevitable no matter how advanced the technology is. Therefore, if human cloning technology is practiced, there is a high probability that mutated genes will occur, and the child will die before being born, or if it is born, it will be born with a fatal disorder. With such a high risk, it is quite selfish to think that human cloning technology should be practiced for the advancement of biotechnology without thinking about the suffering of the cloned human who will be born. They are human beings, and their rights should be respected, and it is not right to perform a technology that involves pain and risk.
As described above, if human cloning technology is developed and implemented, there is a great risk of significant disruption and crisis in our society, as well as the risk of human rights violations and mutations in cloned humans. Despite all these risks and concerns, many people still insist that human cloning technology should be developed as soon as possible. Let’s take a look at some of the reasons why.
First of all, they argue that human cloning technology should be developed because it can cure many terminal diseases and save many suffering patients and their families. Despite the advances in medical technology, there are still many incurable diseases and many patients suffer from them. In response to this current situation, many advocates of human cloning argue that it is the job of science to alleviate the suffering of patients, and that human cloning technology can play a key role in the treatment of these terminal diseases.
They have a point, of course. The problem with human cloning research is that it requires the creation of new life and the use of that life to treat terminally ill patients. As a result, while the existing patient may be cured, the cloned human created to cure them will either live with a fatal disability or die shortly thereafter because their organs or biological tissue will have to be removed. We need to recognize that patients are not the only human beings, and that cloned humans are also living beings and human beings. It is selfish and wrong to create a new life form to relieve the suffering of the person who is with us right now, and then use them as a tool, disregarding their human rights, and causing them new suffering.
Embryonic stem cell research, which is similar in concept to human cloning, is currently being conducted to treat terminal diseases. Since it uses undifferentiated cells and does not harm any adult, it is a transplantation method that is free from human rights issues and social value confusion. If fully researched and developed, it could be used to treat many terminal diseases.
However, there is another argument against this. It is argued that embryonic stem cells are no different from human cloning, as they are ultimately taken from another adult and cloned, and therefore can be used commercially, which can also undermine the value of life. However, transplantation techniques using embryonic stem cells do not pose a human rights issue because they use undifferentiated cells and do not harm any living organism. Furthermore, even if embryonic stem cells were to be commercially utilized, there is no possibility of social disruption due to the pursuit of profit, since they are undifferentiated cells and can only be used for therapeutic purposes.
Therefore, rather than the short-sighted idea of developing and implementing human cloning technology while ignoring the human rights and suffering of cloned humans just because it can bring great effects and reduce the suffering of patients, it is preferable to expand various other research to preserve ethical values and advance science and technology.
Another argument for developing and advancing human cloning technology is that superior genes can be implanted in cloned humans to play a key role in social development and public interest. In particular, J.S. Mill, author of the book Clone and Clone, has said that we already have the technical capability to create cloned humans with the genes of outstanding historical figures, and that this would create an incredibly advanced society. But this argument is also a huge logical leap. The reason is that people who have achieved great things throughout history have done so not solely because of their innate (genetic) traits, but because they have been heavily influenced by acquired influences and historical context. In fact, in the case of Einstein, the author’s example, he did not achieve his remarkable achievements only because of his innate talent, but also because he had brilliant colleagues around him who provided him with a variety of experimental information, and because he put in a tremendous amount of hard work. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that people who create new human beings by cloning their genes will achieve great things.
The scholar argued for the development of human cloning technology, claiming that human cloning does not violate human rights. He cited the example of twins, saying, “Twins are born and live with the same genetic traits, and they don’t feel that their human rights have been violated at all,” and argued that genetic traits, innate characteristics, have no effect on their human rights. However, this is completely wrong. First of all, unlike natural twins, cloned humans are created for a specific purpose, long after the birth of an existing adult, and at a time staggered from the birth of a natural twin, and then, unlike twins, they are considered as if they were tools, deprived of the right to create their own future, to have their own unique identity. This is a clear violation of human rights and is fatally problematic.
So far, we’ve seen some of the deadly problems that will arise if human cloning technology is developed. We’ve seen that the development of human cloning technology could disrupt one of the most important ethical underpinnings of our society – the value of life – and that it has the potential to be used for profit and lead to serious human rights violations. We also discussed how the risks are so great that technologically perfect human cloning by mutation is not possible, and argued that human cloning technology should never be developed. While some experts have argued that human cloning technology should be developed for the advancement of biotechnology and for the public good, their arguments fail to address the serious ethical and value issues that arise. As for the proponents of human cloning, there are many ways to address the role of biotechnology that do not raise the issues mentioned above, such as embryonic stem cell research, and it is more important to develop them. In conclusion, we should never develop human cloning technology, as it is highly likely to cause serious disruptions and crises in our society.
