Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the process of cloning
Genetic modification and society in a brave new world
Dangers of cloning on human lives
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on the process of cloning
The Science of Cloning
In the essay, Cloning Reality: Brave New World by Wesley J. Smith, a skewed view of the effects of cloning is presented. Wesley feels that cloning will end the perception of human life as sacred and ruin the great diversity that exists today. He feels that cloning may in fact, end human society as we know it, and create a horrible place where humans are simply a resource. I disagree with Wesley because I think that the positive effects of controlled human cloning can greatly improve the quality of life for humans today, and that these benefits far outweigh the potential drawbacks that could occur if cloning was misused.
Human cloning is one of the most controversial subjects in modern times. Supporters claim that cloning is a great advance in science and can lead to great discoveries and medical breakthroughs. Opponents feel that cloning is a threat to human individuality and is potentially disastrous. Both sides make reasonable arguments, however I feel that Wesley takes things a bit too far in his grim outlook on the future of humanity. Sure, there are downsides to cloning, and yes it can be dangerous if it is used for the wrong purposes. This is true with almost any new technology. From gunpowder to cars to airplanes to computers to the Internet; any one of these technologies can be harnessed for negative purposes. Despite the risks involved however, all of these technologies have improved our standard of living and quality of life, and I feel cloning will do the same.
Wesley J. Smith goes on and on about how eugenicists would want to create homogeneity among Humans, valuing traits such as intelligence and looks instead of love, compassion, and empathy. He feels that this would create an unnatural society of human beings, creating chaos among the world. What he fails to recognize however is that it is not nearly as simple to do this as he thinks. Right now, cloning is in its very elementary stages, and most research being done is for medical purposes. Through advancing our knowledge in cloning and genetic engineering, we can eliminate unwanted traits and genetic diseases. Wesley may then try to argue that these unwanted traits and diseases make us unique, but I doubt he will get much support, especially from somebody who suffers from some horrible genetic disease or deformity.
Wesley then uses nature itself in his arguments by stating: “Eugenics, as awful as it is, is only the beginning of the threat posed to the natural order by human cloning”.
Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aim at improving the genetic quality of the human population played a significant role in the history and culture of United States prior to its involvement in World War Two. (Wiki) Gilman is the writer of late 19th and early 20th century and during this century which is known as progressive era, Eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population. The idea of Eugenics was brought up by Sir Francis Galton in America. They think that by the idea of eugenics there will be a development in a society. America also made American Breeder’s Association which later on founded the Eugenics Record office, and with certain mission and, in their mission statement, they wrote: Society must protect itself; as it claims the right to deprive the murder of his life so it may also annihilate the hideous serpent of hopelessly vicious protoplasm. Here is where appropriate legislation will aid in eugenics and creating a healthier, saner society in the
The objective of this essay is to inform the reader(s) about human cloning. I believe that human cloning is morally wrong because one should not have the right to avoid daily responsibilities by getting someone else to handle them. There will be four sections of this paper that will be discussed. Firstly, there is an argumentative section, which will have premises along with a conclusion for an argument made against human cloning. Secondly, an explanation section, which explains how the argument against human cloning obeys the rules for a good argument. Thirdly, an objection section to where there are arguments that violates mine in order to demonstrate how objectors might object to the argument. Lastly, there will be a conclusion where I discuss
“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” (Kass) The concept of cloning continues to evoke debate, raising extensive ethical and moral controversy. As humans delve into the fields of science and technology, cloning, although once considered infeasible, could now become a reality. Although many see this advancement as the perfect solution to our modern dilemmas, from offering a potential cure for cancer, AIDS, and other irremediable diseases, its effects are easily forgotten. Cloning, especially when concerning humans, is not the direction we must pursue in enhancing our lives. It is impossible for us to predict its effects, it exhausts monetary funds, and it harshly abases humanity.
Eugenics is the future of modifying the Human body naturally with no injections or experimental drugs necessary. This could lead to the best version of the human race that has walked this planet. This could make the world all of us live in a disease free world full of healthy people. According to Biograpghy.com Eugenics got
D'souza makes the argument that the techno-utopians idea of cloning and genetic engineering will lead to a future where children have their traits selected for them creating a new form of eugenics where you are discriminated not against skin color, but instead against your genotype. He raises the concern however, that while the techno-utopians make the claim that it genetic modifications wouldn't be used until they were safe, that doesn't assure that there won't be any problems.
In conclusion, it is clear to see that cloning is not the taboo it has been made out to be. It is a new boundary that humanity has never encountered before and so it is understandable that people have qualms about ‘playing God’ by shaping a life. Although some might argue that it is immoral to clone human beings, the truth is that it is unethical not to. Given that such technology has the potential to save millions upon millions of lives, not tapping into that industry would have dire consequences on the future. In this case, the ends more certainly justify the means.
The essay, “Cloning Reality: Brave New World” by Wesley J. Smith, provides a somewhat distorted view of the effects of cloning. He feels that cloning will prevent human life from being seen as sacred and will ruin the great diversity that exists today. He feels that cloning in fact, could be the end of society, and create a world where people are just resources. I somewhat agree with Wesley because I think that the cloning of humans would be greatly over used. Because of this, human life would be greatly alike meaning that fewer jobs will be filled. For example, if you clone a person 100 times then you would have 100 clones that are only good in one skill area. Human cloning is a very controversial subject. Some supporters say that cloning people could be a great advance in science and can
Cloning humans has recently become a possibility. It is achieved by the production of a group of identical cells or organisms that all derive from a single individual (Grolier 220). It is not known when cloning humans really became a possibility, but it is known that there are two possible ways that we can clone humans. The first way involves splitting an embryo into several halves and creating many new individuals from that embryo. The second method of cloning a human involves taking cells from an already existing human being and cloning them, in turn creating other individuals that are identical to that particular person. With these two methods almost at our fingertips, we must ask ourselves two very important questions: Can we do this, and should we? There is no doubt that many problems involving the technological and ethical sides of this issue will arise and will be virtually impossible to avoid, but the overall idea of cloning humans is one that we should accept as a possible reality for the future. Cloning humans is an idea that has always been thought of as something that could be found in science fiction novels, but never as a concept that society could actually experience. "It is much in the news. The public has been bombarded with newspaper articles, magazine stories, books, television shows, and movies as well as cartoons¡¨, writes Robert McKinnell, the author of Cloning: A Biologist Reports (24). Much of this information in these sources leads the public in the wrong direction and makes them wonder how easy it would be for everyone around them to be cloned. Bizarre ideas about cloning lie in many science fiction books and scare the public with their unbelievable possibilities. David Rorvik wrote a highly controversial book entitled In His Image. In it he describes the story of a wealthy man who decides to clone himself. He is successful in doing this and causes quite an uprise in his community. This book was written in the late seventies and even then, societies reaction to the issues of human cloning was generally a negative one. We face a problem today even greater than the one in this book and it involves the duplication of human beings in a society that has always been known for its diversity. The main issue as to whether or not human cloning is possible through the splitting of embryos began in 1993 when experimentation was done at George W...
Secondly, “the most the human race has to loose by playing around with cloning is that the genetic diversity would be lost (Andrea Castro, 2005).” Reducing the genetic differences will produce clones that are grossly overlarge, many animals will be born with genetic mutations, and there will be a higher “risk of disease transfer (Saskaschools, 2003). “A review of all the world's cloned animals suggests that every one of them is genetically and physically defective (Leake, 2002).” Mutations will be passed on to the younger generation because if a cloned species has a mutation in their DNA this mutation will be passed on. Cloning has been linked with diseases of ageing, arthritis and, cancer.
When created in 1923, the American Eugenics Society exemplified an air of reform with a seemingly positive purpose, however this cannot be further from the truth. In reality, the society polluted the air with myths of weeding out imperfections with the Galtonian ideal, the breeding of the fittest (Carison). The founder of the society, Charles Davensport , preached that those who are imperfect should be eliminated(Marks). From the school desk to the pulpit, the fallacies of the eugenics movement were forced into society. Preachers often encouraged the best to marry the best while biology professors would encourage DNA testing to find out ones fate (Selden). A...
In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of “Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?” John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjustified and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the flip side of this issue Attorney and medical ethicist George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be implemented upon it. Both express valid points and I will critique the articles to better understand their points.
The use of eugenics is not a guaranteed process. There is no such thing as a perfect person. Therefore, you cannot create one by only using educated, wealthy, or desirable people. The truth is, a person with all the right traits or genes could produce a mentally ill child. On the other hand, a person with a mental illness, or an undesirable trait could produce a smart, attractive, desired child. All people are born the same, the choices you make and the way you are raised make you who you are. We are all born with the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Consequently, eugenics is trying to take the right of a person to bear children away because of their place in life.
New technological advances are being mad every day, especially in genetics. With great innovations comes concerns whether it will have a good cause or be used for bad intentions. One of these is eugenics, the idea to improve genetic composition in humans most specifically in future fetuses. The idea started in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton who wanted to selectively breed humans using desired traits to create a perfect human race. This lead to many unethical moments in history such as the sterilization of unfit humans in the 19th century as well as Hitler’s use of eugenics during WWII. However, current use helps identify possible inherited diseases/conditions in unborn children and remove those traits from the DNA. Although eugenics has been used
If you could selectively choose the characteristics of your offspring, would you? Genetic engineering has made this globally possible, giving parents access to genetic modification to enhance or modify characteristics of an individual gene. This new technology can benefit families in the prevention of many genetic diseases, but the applied science can also create terrible problems across the world such as overpopulation, due to the disappearance of these disorders, and a single, master race due to the accessible selection of preferred traits in the lab. Although this scientific advancement can aid us in the future, this should not be the path that of our future takes due to the excessive amount of disorder it will cause.