- Thank God designer genes are back in style.
by E. Al Pants
As scientists get closer and closer to cloning human beings, senators, conservatives and ugly people are beginning to panic. They envision a population boom of hulking beautiful people who will eventually take over the world creating a fascist state where only those with clear skin and pretty eyes will have any power. And everyone will have to eat Scandinavian food.
Well, of course, this is only partially true. Scandinavian food is in our future, but believe me, the upcoming population of clones is going to be just as flabby and disorganized as you and me. The science fiction idea of clones representing swarms of carbon copies of adults, instantly grown in huge tanks of blue plasma is not at all the scenario. A cloned human still has to gestate in a human womb (mommy's tummy), and it grows at the same speed we all do. It's like having an identical twin twenty-five years later. Same genetic blueprint, but environment grows a whole different person from the moment of conception. Even those who think most of our traits are genetically predetermined allow for substantial environmental determination of traits. When it comes right down to it, a clone is just another drooling, poopy, interminably cute, human baby.
With one exception of course. It doesn't have a soul.
Yes, as it turns out, only naturally occurring sentient beings develop souls. Beings engineered from a single source of DNA do not develop souls, according to Dr. Janet Harmon, a respected autusanimulogist (soul growth specialist) and in only rare cases will these clones steal the soul of its genetic benefactor (usually resulting in insanity and constant itching for that genetic originator). So almost all clones have all the usual physical attributes, hunger, need for sleep, sexual appetite, reproductive drive and emotions (as all emotions are actually physio-chemical responses related to hunger, sexual need and secondary highway driving), but they simply don't have souls.
So what does this mean? Well, if you're down with Sartre, absolutely nothing. Who needs a soul? But others insist that the soul is necessary for distinguishing right from wrong. This of course is not true as all children (currently) have souls and all children lie, steal and do their best to inflict injury on other children. Luckily, they're small, so when they try to injure adults, one good smack (or well-placed kick) teaches them not to do it again. And this is how environment and conditioning, not the presence of a soul, determines behavior that distinguishes right from wrong.
Some say that without a soul, one cannot express or feel true love. But according to Buddha, Jesus and Glenn Campbell, true spiritual love, divine love, or agape, can only be truly achieved by giving oneself over to the Divine, fully leaving that which is individual (and ultimately selfish) and becoming one with the Divine. As the soul is the expression of the individual essence of divinity, or the separate spirit, the individuality of the soul is in fact an obstacle to the feeling or expression of agape. She without a soul has already achieved what the yogi desires. Cosmic oneness and no stiffness in the knees.
Some think that the soul is necessary for the appreciation of art, but of course this is also not true. By definition, one who makes her living interpreting or appreciating art is a critic. And of course critics don't have souls.
It appears that the only time a soul comes into play is after death. If there is an afterlife, those without a soul don't get to go. That's a bummer because, sorry, no Heaven. But it's also a blessing because, hey, no Hell either! In fact it has been conjectured that without a soul, those who die fall into a state of darkness with the faint sound of seventies rock in the background. Fairly pleasant, but not really great and not too sucky. Just sort of there.
So, without the consequence of afterlife judgment, what will be the behavior of your average clone? Probably much like your present day Atheist. Not too dangerous, no real passion for war, but only a mild commitment to charity. Love for her fellow man, especially in the immediate family and a continued interest in sports and 60's music. A drive for knowledge and a really annoying, yet subtle, condescending arrogance that never quite specifically manifests itself verbally so if you call them on it, you just sound stupid which pisses you off even more.
So really, clones give us nothing to fear, except in the fact that we are already overpopulated so why are we spending valuable resources trying to make more damn people? Actually, I have some ideas on overpopulation, but that's another rant. The fact is, clones are just like everybody else. Annoying. Especially when driving an SUV.
Still, there are those who fear that genetic engineering (an entirely separate ball of fish), if coupled with cloning, could mean the end of natural individuality. That we would indeed be facing a totalitarian world of beautiful, soulless people. But that doesn't scare me. I've already been to L.A.
-E.A.P