Cloning Questions

[jhameia]

So I watched one of the best Star Trek: Enterprise episodes I've seen in a while, and I pretty much spent half of it crying (not a bad thing, it's GOOD).

I couldn't care less to remember what the episode is, but in it, Trip (my second favourite character after Malcolm) falls into a coma and he needs replacement neural cells. The only way to do this is by giving a symbiote whose lifespan would be 15 days Trip's DNA, and using the neural cells from this "clone".

There've always been several questions with this sort of technology - one of the issues, of course, being that growing a child for the sake of cell donation has always been questionable. There've been many instances where parents have a child because an already existing child is suffering from some condition for which they can't find a matching donor of cells. Having a child purely for the sake of another sounds a bit extreme and I don't think there's ever been such a thing... most families I see do this also value this new child as much and welcome it as a new addition to the family. I very much prefer seeing a child be born for the sake of medical benefit than carelessness and irresponsibility.

The clone of Trip is named Sim, which I think is such an interesting pick - Sim for 'simulated'. 'Simulacra' was the first word that came to mind (which doesn't make sense.... Sim IS a copy WITH an original). A mini, faster-paced version of Trip, just like all those Sim- games we play.

In four days, Sim is the same physical age as Trip, and he has all of Trip's memories, as well as his own of his four days of existance. He talks about Trip's life like it's his own, and he contributes in his own way. He confesses his, or Trip's (he's not sure himself) feelings for T'Pol, and of course, then comes the time when everyone realizes not only can he not live for more than 15 days (without an experimental enzyme), if they go through with the operation he'll die instead of living his full 15 days.

There're several philosophical questions raised here. For instance, if a copy of Trip was made, and has his memories, his DNA, despite the "real" Trip lying in a coma in the same ship, what, then, is Sim's existance? Is he Trip? Or is he Sim? Or Simulation-Trip? Does he count as a human, or is he a 15-day symbiote?

What constitutes as real, versus "fake"? Is Sim "fake", and is his existance "invalid" simply because he's a copy? You can't even say he's a "copy" because he has his own memories which distinguish him from Trip - does he then constitute as his own individual?

It's a bit like the boat dilemma... in this case, the owner of a boat has it in the care of someone else. Over the years, the caretaker replaces parts of the boat as it rots away until the "original" boat is gone. When the owner comes back, is it still the same boat? Or is it a whole new boat entirely?

It's a HUGE ethical dilemma and I think it's a valid debate to consider when thinking about the possibilities of cloning. First we have to consider what IS an individual before going off making an entire new one from scratch. Secondly, if a clone can be considered an individual, would it be right to cultivate one just for the sole purpose of killing him/her for the progenitor's sake?

What is the sum of a person's life?

Or a "copy"?

Comments

[fayenatic.livejournal.com]

Another movie that would hit the spot on 'Clones are human beings/individuals' too is Michael Bay's 'The Island' (Ewan Mcgregor and Scarlett Johannson).

In The Island, there is this mysterious facility that houses thousands and thousands of clones. A story is ran to them that the world is decimated and they are the remaining survivors.

The management of the facility tells them there is a remaining spot of 'untainted paradise' called 'The Island'. But they don't want to let the steady stream of clones out lest they want the Island to be contaminated sooner with a huge population explosion.

Therefore, every week there is a general 'lottery' where a designative clone's ID (i.e. JOE5225) is picked to go to the Island. Anyone can go.
One of the more surreal creepy scenes is where a pregnant lady is taken out of the facility to be relocated to 'The Island'. You see, pregnant clones are taken out far more faster within 9 months as compared to the other in mates who have been there for years.

Here's the creepy part though, the pregnant lady clone gives birth; and wants to see her child. But the orderly turned on an aenesthetic pump which causes the lady to loose her consciousness and then her death. In the next scene, the recently birthed baby is taken to a sitting room and there she was, the EXACT lady who JUST gave birth, only that this time she has a man with her presumably her husband.

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

That was a great movie. But see, that just asks the same questions - what's the sum of a human life, and can it be bought? Like the detective brought in to look for the escapees, he asks the director of the facility, "So you're trying to play God?"

The girl who's picked to go to the Island? She's supposed to be the organ donor for an original who had an accident and required several organs. She doesn't want to die - but she was created because her original wants to live, too.

Ewan MacGregor's two characters have that same desire, which causes conflict for the both of them. Whose individual right takes precedence? Is it really fair to say that they BOTH have EQUAL right? That can't be true, otherwise cloning wouldn't exist.

Was it really ethical to release all those clones out of the facility? What happens when you're faced with your clone? Is it ethical to force them back, to death?

Michael Bay made a great movie, but he certainly doesn't give any answers.

[(Anonymous)]

dude, you really missed out on some great debates about these very questions by not taking Heffernan's honours course last year.

-ms