Selfish clone

Similar to humanity's historical fears of robots, today there is a significant (and irrational) fear of cloned beings. In the spirit of Isaac Asimov's book, "The Selfish Robot", Michael Shermer proposes three cloning laws, which will protect the clones - and advance science

Michael Shermer, Scientific American

 In his 1950 science fiction book, "The Selfish Robot", Isaac Asimov presented the three laws of robotics: "1. A robot will not harm any person and will not allow, by default, harm to a person. 2. A robot will follow any instruction given to it by humans, except in those cases where following such an instruction would contradict the first law. 3. A robot must maintain its existence, as long as this self-preservation does not contradict the first law or the second law."
Today people express irrational fears about cloning, similar to the fears that surrounded robotics half a century ago. Therefore, I would like to propose three cloning laws that will clarify, among other things, three misunderstandings:

* A cloned person is a unique person in his humanity no less than an identical twin.
* A cloned person will have all the rights and privileges accompanying this legal and moral status.
* The cloned person must be given the same respect and treatment that every individual in the human race deserves.

Although these simplifications may erase the spectrum of subtle nuances that arise in the ethical discussions that take place in the field of pioneering research, they are undoubtedly useful in allaying the ridiculous fears that often accompany progress on the subject. It seems that the people of the realist movement failed to duplicate themselves, but it is clear that someone, somewhere, and at some near time is going to create a cloned person, and as soon as one team succeeds, evil will unfold and more clones will appear.
If the clone produced genetic monsters, rendering it unusable as another method of increasing fertility, there would be no need to ban it because no one would use it. On the other hand, if cloning is found to be effective, there would be no point in banning it, because the three common reasons that are put forward as justification for imposing restrictions are myths. I call them the myth of the identical personality, the myth of playing God and the myth of human rights and dignity.
 
The myth of the identical personality is well represented by the activist Jeremy Rifkin: "It is a horrible crime to make a copy of someone. You put a person in a genetic straitjacket." 
Nonsense. He and his fellow clone critics turned the argument on its head. As environmental determinists, they must claim "replicate to your heart's content - you will never create another you, because the environment has at least as much influence as heredity." The best scientific evidence so far shows that about half of the differences between us originate from genes, and the rest originate from the environment. There is no possibility of duplicating the almost infinite number of combinations that manifest themselves during the development of each individual, so cloning does not threaten the uniqueness of humanity.
 
The myth of playing God has many promoters, and the professor of theological ethics at Duke University, Stanley M. Hoyerwas, recently joined them: "The very attempt to clone a person is bad. The assumption that we should do what we are able to do is driven by the Promethean desire to be our own creators." He is not alone in supporting this myth. A survey conducted in 1997 by "Time" and CNN revealed that out of 1005 Americans, 74% answered "yes" to the question "Is human cloning against God's will?". nonsense. The clone may appear to be "playing God" only because it is not yet known. Think of earlier examples of fertility technologies that were once "god-like," and are now happily adopted because we've gotten used to them, such as in vitro fertilization and embryo implantation.
 
The myth of human rights and dignity is embodied in the official statement of the Catholic Church against cloning, based on the belief that it denies "the dignity of human reproduction and of the marriage covenant", and also in the demand of the Sunni Muslim cleric that "science must be regulated by strict laws to preserve the Humanity and its dignity". nonsense. The clones will be no more alike than identical twins raised in separate environments, and no one is arguing that twins have no rights or dignity, or that their existence should be banned. Instead of limiting or preventing the technology, I suggest that we adopt the three laws of cloning, the principles of which have long been included in the laws and language of the US Constitution, and allow science to continue on its course. The soul of science is found in brave thought and creative experimentation, not in prohibitions and limiting fear. For science to progress, it must be given the opportunity to succeed or fail. Let's run the cloning experiment and see what happens.