Are the possibilities of human cloning and eugenic selection opened up by advances in modern biology ethical and justifiable?

The human cloning technologies of modern biology, along with the expectations of curing genetic diseases and disorders, raise ethical issues and require us to reconsider the meaning of eugenics in a different way than in the past. It is important to understand the nature of the debate and have a constructive discussion.

 

Ever since modern biology opened the door to the possibility of human cloning, many people have been excited about the benefits of human cloning and expect it to solve many of the challenges that modern medicine has failed to address, such as genetic diseases and disorders. At the same time, however, many have also predicted harms, including ethical issues, that the technology could bring, and human cloning has sparked debate among experts from all walks of life. Proponents and opponents are sharply divided on a variety of ethical, technological, religious, and commercial issues, but it’s hard to say which side is entirely correct, as these are all based on personal values. However, in order to accurately convey the arguments for and against in these debates, it’s important to understand the nature of the words being used, and one of the many points of contention is eugenic selection.
Concerns about eugenic selection, which can be accomplished through the manipulation of genes, are one of the main arguments for and against human cloning. Proponents argue that human cloning research is not about creating Superman or Wonder Woman through genetic selection, but rather about alleviating the suffering of children from disabilities and genetic diseases. On the other hand, opponents such as Leon Cass argue that if human cloning based on genetic manipulation is successfully developed and widely accepted, it will inevitably lead to the problem of humans abusing eugenic selection to eliminate their recessive traits and retain their dominant traits in reproduction. The U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Committee also points out that the creation of children using cloning technology opens the door to eugenics by allowing parents to choose the traits their children will have, which could lead to the destruction of important social values.
Indeed, since its inception, eugenics has had a troubled history, being used as a rationale for racism and eugenics, including justifying the Nazi genocide of Jews and the oppression of people of color. As a result, eugenics has been dismissed as a blind ideology rather than a theory and has generated a great deal of resistance and concern among the general public. Therefore, the arguments against opening the door to eugenics through human cloning seem to be valid, and it is understandable that people have a great deal of resistance to human cloning. However, the term “eugenics” in this context comes from the past and has an inherently different meaning than the eugenic selection that is implicitly practiced in modern times. Therefore, in order to make informed judgments about human cloning, it is important to move beyond the rejection and concerns about eugenics in the past and understand that modern eugenics is very different from the past.
First, historical eugenics and modern eugenics differ in terms of means, ends, and methods. In the past, eugenics aimed to improve the genetic traits of the entire population of a society, and in doing so, governments used coercive means to promote or restrict parental reproduction without recognizing the rights of individuals. It was also steeped in racial and class prejudice and based on overly simplistic scientific premises. Modern eugenics, on the other hand, aims to cure genetic diseases or enhance certain traits in individuals, and is based on well-researched scientific findings. It is also based on the voluntary decision of individual families, and the outcome is also utilitarian in nature.
Second, they differ in terms of the validity of the research on the subject of eugenics. In the past, eugenics oppressed and belittled people of color, including blacks, because white cultures included skin color in the category of dominance and perceived the skin of people of color as a recessive factor. This perception stemmed from ignorance of the scientific fact that skin color is merely an adaptation to the environment in which a race lived, and eugenics of the past, with its lack of research on genes, was largely lacking in validity. Modern eugenics, on the other hand, has a clearer understanding of the role of genes and hereditary diseases, which means that it is possible to plausibly recognize that genes causing hereditary diseases are recessive to normal genes, and accurate genetic correction is possible under the premise that individuals’ voluntary participation is guaranteed.
Third, unlike eugenics in the past, which was part of a governmental policy with specific intentions, modern eugenics can be seen as a method that is already implicitly utilized in human life. Unlike eugenics in the past, where it was considered taboo and was frowned upon, eugenics in modern life is a tacit phenomenon. For example, when humans choose a mate for reproduction, choosing someone who is good-looking, physically fit, or intelligent can be seen as a choice to improve the genetic traits of the offspring. This is not so different in nature from the basic idea of eugenics, which is to improve the genetic traits of offspring by human or social intervention. In addition, in the human case, buying and selling stallions at high prices to obtain superior racehorses, or selectively breeding puppies to obtain desired traits, can also be considered eugenic choices. In other words, modern eugenics is being used in a natural way.
Fourth, there are different stances on environmental influences and therefore different levels of confidence in eugenics. In the past, eugenics was based on genetic determinism, meaning that genes determine everything. For example, blacks are genetically inferior to whites and therefore will remain inferior regardless of any environmental changes. In modern times, there are still scholars like Richard Dawkins who advocate for genetic determinism, but there are also studies that show that individual effort and environmental influences play a role in human potential. Modern eugenics takes these factors into account, which makes it less dangerous to blindly pursue eugenics.
As you can see, modern eugenics is very different from the eugenics of the past in many ways. It is different in that it is based on voluntary decisions by individuals to treat genetic disorders or enhance traits, it is based on sufficient research on the targets of genetic dominance, it is already implicitly practiced in modern life, as opposed to being part of a policy, and it takes environmental impacts into account. Therefore, the concerns of opponents about the eugenic potential of human cloning, which stem from an understanding of eugenics based on the past, should be reconsidered in light of modern eugenics. However, a modern understanding of eugenics does not guarantee that eugenic choices are correct and justified. Opponents can still point out that even modern eugenics is flawed and argue that eugenic selection is still wrong. As technology is already advancing, it is important to understand the nature of the debate in order to avoid mere name-calling and have a more constructive discussion. Therefore, it is important to recognize the differences between historical and modern eugenics.