This essay explores some of the fallacious predictions made about the future of human cloning, as well as actual possibilities for it and ethical arguments in its favor.

Man is engaged in a constant struggle for survival against the manifold perils of the external world, and even a cascade of scientific and technological breakthroughs will only eliminate particular menaces among a horde of them. Medical technology has conquered certain infectious diseases, such as smallpox and the plague, but others, including genetic disorders and diseases like cancer, linked to genetic malfunctions, continue to decimate the population of even the most advanced countries.

Genetic research, including therapeutic cloning, can remedy these ills and further bombard the elemental horde that threatens to engulf man. Moreover, side applications of this technology can benefit many consenting consumers and innovators. After all, the creation of technology is an intricately deliberate process, with its makers intending to flourish from it, and with the prosperity of their purchasers being their vehicle toward their own prosperity. Seeing as this expectation was hatched within the rational minds of such ingenious producers, external opinion cannot impose upon them the arbitrary and intervening judgment that their work has gone "too far."

It is a popular fallacy that the development of human cloning would lead to coercive projects that aim at genetically "perfecting" or "improving" the human species. A project or initiative that would clone only "the best and brightest" of the human race presumes a central authority that would decide the criteria that comprise the terms "best and brightest." This authority would also be inherently restrictive of the reproductive freedom of individuals in choosing whether they themselves should be cloned, regardless of their societal image.

As such, this project would significantly reduce the range of opportunities that arises from the emergence of reproductive technologies, as a hypothetical brilliant innovator or athlete at odds with the central authority would not be cloned due to the whims of bureaucracy.

My comprehensive criteria for "best and brightest" include phenotypic and genotypic health (i.e., freedom from genetic illness or defects, a strong immune system, active metabolism, and resistance to elemental perils) as well as a broadly defined intellectual activity in the promotion of reason and technological progress.

However, I do not wish to deny anyone outside of my definition the opportunity to reproduce in the way he pleases. I would not, though, object to a privately run project (or multitude thereof) that would, from somatic cells of dead great men of the past, produce clones of men who cannot choose to clone themselves. In a free society, individuals, not governments, would make all decisions pertaining to the realm of cloning. Hence, provided the Western world does not succumb to totalitarianism, a mass biotechnological "improvement" project for the human species will not come to pass.

Ultimately, a vast number of technologies at the forefront of their times had been fiercely opposed by the reactionary elements of their time. Nevertheless, these technologies have always found beneficial uses. Even nuclear weapons had served as the deterrent that prevented the United States and the Soviet Union from waging a conventional war against each other for over fifty years. No two countries that both possessed nuclear weapons had ever waged even a conventional war against each other. (One can also legitimately argue that nuclear weapons are steadily becoming obsolete, but they have served their purpose during the peak of their usage).

Similarly, as nuclear weapons did not produce the Armageddon predicted by their critics, neither will cloning bring about "degradation" of the human identity or legions of children created for spare parts. History suggests that cloning will follow the path of all other medical innovations in its ability to improve man's quality of life, and, moreover, will come to be far more widely accepted once it is put into practice and its beneficence is demonstrated.

Yet scientific progress and individual liberty can be devastated by intervention from both political and religious figures. Career politicians, especially in the pressure-group-warfare age of today, are almost necessarily scientifically ignorant (unless they are of an exceedingly rare minority of dilettantes) and rise to power not by upholding truth, but by pandering to the arbitrary and stereotypical whims of their constituencies.

Thus, if the popular electorate happens to be frightened of clone armies after seeing the next horror thriller, the politician, seeking reelection, will quell their nightmares by abolishing cloning and driving a wondrous advance underground.

Religious figures are even more detrimental in this regard. As technology and free commerce progress, and societal functions become increasingly more individualized, religion as a pre-scientific means of interpreting the world does and must inevitably fade into the background. Religion's sometimes efficacious but often fallaciously justified practical judgments come to be replaced by meticulous scientific analysis, while its philosophy of submission to an external authority and to the "collective will" is succeeded by a secular individualist ethic.

Many religious leaders recognize that their job opportunities in the field will become increasingly scarce as technology approaches creating a paradise on earth; thus, they will vehemently oppose an advance in direct proportion to its ability to improve human lives.

A rational society must not fulfill their desires, but rather leave them seeking a job more compatible with the free market of goods and ideas. Alternatively, rational individuals can welcome the evolution of religious doctrines that include a justification for the new biotechnological developments; such a course of action may be the only one that will enable the traditional religions to survive in the face forthcoming massive biotechnological progress.

Cloning technology offers numerous bright prospects for the future of free human beings who seek to control their destinies while respecting the lives and rights of others. Fears regarding this emerging achievement are unjustified, and we can only hope that popular ignorance does not stunt its development.

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician, composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right, Le Quebecois Libre,  Rebirth of Reason, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Senior Writer for The Liberal Institute, weekly columnist for GrasstopsUSA.com, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles of reason, rights, and progress. Mr. Stolyarov also publishes his articles on Helium.com and Associated Content to assist the spread of rational ideas. His newest science fiction novel is Eden against the Colossus. His latest non-fiction treatise is A Rational Cosmology. His most recent play is Implied Consent. Mr. Stolyarov can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA's Issue CVI Index.

Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here..

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new four-act play, Implied Consent, a futuristic intellectual drama on the sanctity of human life, here.