The Island

I'm just 5 mins into my hse n here I am seated in front of my comp, for I have tots abt sth that I wana pen down b4 I get too lazy to do anything abt it. I just watched The Island with Gillian at JP. It was a remarkably good show, despite the less-than-creative title. Hell, I think I'd go so far as to say its the best show I watched this year. The gist of the plot revolves ard 1 theme: human cloning. I remembered I wrote an essay on this topic for my A Level GP paper. N its sth that intrigues me a lot.

In it, Ewan McGregor plays a clone of someone living in the real world. All clones are kept in an undergrd facility whereby they await to have their organs harvested by their original counterpart shd their organs fail them. Their r termed as insurance policies, bought by the filthy rich. The clones lived without any knowledge of the real world, and the only thing they look forward to in ther life is to win the lottery, by which they would get the chance to go to "The Island", which was perceived to be a paradise lost. In actuality, winning the lottery simply means their owner's time is up (n so r theirs'), and they r abt to get their organs harvested.

The show is filmed such as to show human cloning in a bad light; the securities at the facility have no love lost for the clones, they pull a str face, strictly business for them. They laugh n jest as the clones struggle for survival upon knowing they will be killed. The mastermind behind the facility is unfeeling, unscrupulus. Clones r merely products to him.

So is it ethical to clone a human? More than often, Science has brought upon itself various morality issues. Subjects like the atom bomb, nuclear warfare, genetic engineering, etc. It was all made possible thru science. If I'm filthy rich n lying on my deathbed, n someone proposed to me the idea of cloning a new me so as to replace my failed body parts, would I be wrong to want it? If a clone of me is made for this purpose, is it right for him to want to break free of his destiny? Let's look at this, with regards to the idea of freedom to live. In both cases, I can argue for it with this idea.

For the host:
I am rich, n I do not want to die. I can afford to make a clone of myself. Y ain't I allow to do it?

For the clone:
I have as much right to live as anyone else in the world. If there's so much talk abt abt human rights in abortion cases, there shd be as much rights for my case.

So it isn't as clear-cut as in the show, where the cloning parties r portrayed as the villians. No matter what happens, it will always be 1 for 1. 1 must die while the other lives. (Sounds like Harry Potter & Voldermort here?) The scales would not be tilted. Yin and Yang. Black & White. Male & Female. The balance is always there. This is Gillian's view on the matter. So who's at fault? The host or the clone? Or maybe the scientist perharps, for even allowing this to happen. To quote a phrase from the show: "Everyone likes to eat burgers, but they don't like to see the cow." Really apt for the situation at hand.

Later on I had this tot. The host wanted a clone of himself to be created, cos he wanted to live. The clone after being created wanted to live as well. But wouldn't the original sin lies with the host himself, for it was he who wanted it. He should therefore be responsible for his clone as a parent is responsible for their child. Isn't a clone as close to an offspring as it can get? Hence, the host holds full responsiblity over his clone, including his sch of tots.

Finally, to note, science shd not be facing the issues of ethics n morality. Humanity shd be. Commericalization n military usually robs away any morality of techonology. The use of any technology borders on the intended purpose of the user.