Fundamental elements of life and the aspects of cloning bring dramatic advancement to the scientific and medical community; however, is this fast-paced artificial reproduction an intrusion of Nature or a doorway to infinite, medical cures? In lieu of scientific developments in the biological mainstream, the human intervention of life and it's natural state are of utmost concern. Questions are being raised as to what constitutes life produced naturally into this world as opposed to man-made biocreationism. Current events depict a dangerously evolving senerio that will eventually lead to life altering, moral dilemmas. The query here is whether we, as human beings, can justify the birth of alternative life. Physicians of all fields excitedly anticipate what expectedly will stimulate medical achievements on a phenomenal scope. If you can, imagine the limitless possibilities. Heart transplant waiting lists would be a thing of the past. Accident victims could eventually have limb replacements by way of simple, DNA extraction. The ideology that manipulated organs can be created on demand, will definitely expand human lifespans. This, in turn, will bare increasing weight on this already over-populated world. What becomes the deciding factor of who lives or dies will have serious reprecussions. "Logan's Run," a 70's television series comes to mind when faced with this imminent technology. In this program, the Earth is overpopulated and depleted of natural resources. This fictional dramatization depicts life without illness; however, when one reaches the age of 30, he or she is incinerated to create more space for those remaining. Although "Logan's Run" was only a novelty, it was indeed a sign of things to come. Another issue is loss of life. When the time arrives, (and it will) that we have unbiasly accepted the fate of actual human cloning, individuality and the constitution of what is a "real" human will enter into the field of morality. If a loved one passes on, will we simply replace him or her with a biocreated human counterpart or twin? And if so, who is to say that the individual characteristics of this artificially-created person will be exactly duplicated, personality-wise? Then there's the standpoint of human rights. Will these mimic humans have equality as do naturally-born ones? Ethical factors have not been conscienciously studied by the scientific community. Bio-intervention is expidiciously volumizing the evolution of mankind. At which interval do we acknowledge life as mere science? Or do we accept our individual fates as human beings, appreciating our growth in spirituality? The question is - what is to become of the soul of our life when we realize that death is nonexistent? Something to ponder. 01/2003 |
