Cloning is a science disaster waiting to happen. Do you agree?
It is certainly common that human beings are able to photocopy documentation, clothes, furniture and so on. Lately, genetic engineering introduced has been able to produce identical plants in large numbers? How about photocopying animals and human themselves? It sounds impossible; however, outstandingly intelligent creature like human always seems to have the answer for every puzzle. Therefore, cloning is invented and once regarded by some as a brilliant achievement of medical technology. Nevertheless, scrutinizing thoroughly the scope of the matter, I am convinced that cloning is a science disaster waiting to happen.
First and foremost, cloning happens to be unethical and uncertain. When does the life begin? Is that when the embryo is formed? The majority of people perhaps will say yes. Once life is considered to begin with fertilization, cloning occurs to be an inhumane act already. During the process of cloning, scientist will choose valuable sperm cell and destroy the embryo. While the cloning of Dolly the sheep is a successful story, many embryos had been destroyed along the way before the most desired one was resulted. In cloning Dolly the sheep, 277 eggs were used, but Dolly is the single successful outcome. Moreover, the dignity of the embryo is not appreciated as the scientists used them like a tool for experiments and then throw them away afterwards. Therefore, cloning is immoral and against human dignity.
Secondly, cloning poses a great threat for the diversity and evolution of humankind. As cloning is an asexually reproductive process, the off springs are genetically identical to the parent. Therefore, there is no genetic variation and diversity as two parents is not required. When there is no combination of genes, the chances of survival of the child is decreased. Thus, diseases are easily spread. That is also why the law forbids the marriage as well as sexual relationship between members of a family or relatives within three generations. In addition, cloned baby is not born by natured, which have something to do with the evolution. Are human allowed to play God and take control of the evolutional process?
In contrary, supporters of cloning argue that the medical benefits that cloning brings about cannot be ignored. With the invention of cloning, patients who cannot find a donor are still able to survive as cloning can produce an identical copy of the injured organs. Nonetheless, the potential abuse will likely to happen as a result. When injured people can replaced their destroyed organs with the identical ones, other people can also substitute their undesired body parts with other perfect ones. In other words, cloning can be seen as a more developed type plastic surgery. With cloning, people are able to slow down their aging process as the old body parts can be cloned and transplanted into their bodies. Hence, they can renew themselves, and live up to desired age. Conversely, this potential reverse aging process will come with string attached of many social problems. The world now is already overpopulated. While the government of some countries is trying to implement population policies, what is the point of slowing down aging process? Moreover, in some regions with aging population problems, there is already insufficient number of young people working to support the increasing number of the elderly. Indeed, cloning is impractical to certain extent.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that cloning is imminent tragedy to the future of human race as the detriments far outweigh the benefits.
Your comments and suggestions are much appreciated
Please rank me upon 100. Thanks
Hi Chim,
Your essay is good. Technology can be used for both good and bad purposes. It depends on the people uses it.
I would suggest you add how humans had used technology for bad purposes and its consequences.
Like, nuclear technology which can be used to produce nuclear energy as well as to design nuclear weapons. You can exemplify with atomic bombing of Hiroshima in word war 2. Another example is ethical hacking. Now it is used by crackers...
I don't think you should use epitome that way. Usually it is used with "of."
This job is the epitome of thanklessness.
Cloning is a epitome a breakthrough, which allows human and animals to be reproduced asexually.
First and foremost, cloning has brought a glimmer of hope for the homosexual couples.
Come to think of it, they are also ...
Okay, the whole paragraph about homosexuality is not relevant. The question is about whether it will bring a disaster. You have to be very focused when you answer the question.
You can include this part, and make it an argument that the benefits outweigh the risks:
Furthermore, plastic or cosmetic surgery will be less risky when cloning... and you can make it about organ transplants, not cosmetics.
But you have to include a paragraph where you talk about the likelihood that a "disaster" will happen.
:-)
First and foremost, cloning happens to be unethical and uncertain.
Yes, but can we really give up the opportunity to learn what it can teach us? How strange this question is!! Yet, I agree with you: it certainly is uncertain, and in its uncertainty it is ethically questionable.
Okay, I am having a hard time finding corrections to make, because you write so well. I found one, though:
In contrary, supporters of cloning argue... On the contrary, supporters of cloning argue...
In English there is an expression: On the contrary, ...
So, do that instead.
With cloning, people are able to slow down their aging process as the old body parts can be cloned and transplanted into their bodies. ---Yes, when we are going to die, it is hard to resist the temptation to use cloning to make new organs.
Did you really make a case to support the idea that it is a disaster waiting to happen? A disaster is an event that suddenly causes a big problem. The problems you mention are gradual ones, so maybe "disaster" is the wrong word. You might want to say that at the end of the essay. :-)
I try to argue that Cloning is not a disaster because of its benefits.
SO i don;t get why thw homosexual parts are not relevants
Well... the question is about whether or not it can be a disaster. The question is not about whether it has benefits. However, you did make a good point! Also, i apologize, because I think I moved posts from the other thread to this one without moving the original essay. If you post 2 versions of the same essay, please keep them in the same thread.
:-)
