Cloning isn’t a new technology, at least for plant life. Gardeners have been doing it for years every time they take a “cutting.” This type of cloning didn’t cause a great concern for ethical discussion, but certainly the areas of cloning animals and cloning humans are much more controversial. The areas of cloning legality, cloning ethics, and religious views on cloning have started to take shape as the field of biotechnology has advanced in the last ten years.

With the power of cloning, scientists hold the key to life in their hands

The discussion cloning ethics affects two main areas

1. The ethics of human cloning
2. The ethics of animal cloning

These issues are separate and require a great deal of detail to examine them. There’s no question than animal cloning is already affecting many. Genetically modified and cloned animals are already a concern in our food supply. Even a bigger concern, is the idea of cloning pets, which so far hasn’t been initiated on a commercial level.

Cloning pets deserves a close look at the ethics

“The cloning or genetic modification of pets serves no justifiable purpose. These efforts serve only to play upon one set of emotions-our affection for our companion pets-in order to desensitize another set of emotions-our repugnance at the idea of treating them as artifacts that can be “designed” and manufactured. The modification of livestock and the possibility of cloned meat entering the food chain are very controversial. So is the possible use of genetically modified animals to “grow” either pharmaceutical products or organs for transplant into humans.”

Of course the issue of pet cloning brings us to the first fork in the road in the discussion of cloning ethics. Does the genetic material that provides the body of a person or animal determine just “who’ that person or animal is. If we’re merely the byproduct of our genetic material, then we’re operating under genetic determinism. Our fate is decided by our genes alone.

“And just as identical twins are two separate people — biologically, psychologically, morally and legally, though not genetically — so, too, a clone would be a separate person from her non-contemporaneous twin. To think otherwise is to embrace a belief in genetic determinism — the view that genes determine everything about us, and that environmental factors or the random events in human development are insignificant.”

In the case of certain cloned animals, it has become obviously apparent that despite identical genetic material, there are a number of differences between the clone and the original. One owner of a cloned bull even appeared on “This American Life” to talk about just how different the animals were. In his case, he found this to be a jarring inconvenience, because the cloned bull was much nastier than his favorite pet bull. In fact, the cloned bull nearly killed the owner in an attack.

With the ban of federal funds being used to research stem cells, cloning will become even more of an issue, and so will the ethical debate surrounding the practice. Right now, very little is know about the processes being used by companies to create clones. Even less is known about the long-term ramifications of such acts. As cloned genetic material finds it way into more peoples lives through stem cells, cloned meat, or through direct operations, the impact it has on their health and future will likely be profound.

Of course the ethics of cloning animals is extremely controversial, but not to the same degree as human cloning. Once thought of as a space age faraway technology, the tools of human cloning are already in place. The number of potential applications of the commercial cloning of animals is astounding, yet the debate concerning the ethics of such actions, along with detailed discussions of the planned processes of commercial human cloning remains elusive. President Barack Obama, in lifting the federal ban on funding stem cell research has opened a new can of worms that will need to be discussed fully in many circles in upcoming months. Religious leaders have already expressed discontent on Obama striking down the ban, and are pushing for greater dialogue with his administration.

Cloning Ethics (related articles):

• Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research
• Human Cloning Disadvantages
• Pros and Cons of Human Cloning

Consumerism is being spread throughout the world due to Globalization. Consumerism even affects countries where such an approach is a radically different way of viewing life that inhabitants are used to. Therein lies a source of conflict. Many questions are raised about consumerism, and we’ll attempt to look at many of them in detail in coming post. First we’ll take a realistic look at consumerism, both its advantages and disadvantages.

Pros of consumerism

1. The increased demand from the increased desires created in modern man by consumerism have given rise to a vast global middle class. Although millions of people still live in poverty, the affects of consumption have eradicated the same for others.
2. Consumerism has created vast consumer choice. As people became more sophisticated consumers, their demands for varied products increased. As demand increased, suppliers rose to fulfill their needs. Modern consumers have more choice concerning products than group of people in history.
3. Consumerism has improved customer quality. Again, as the customer became King, they demanded the finest quality at the lowest price. Now consumers can pay small amounts of money for products of extremely high quality.
4. Consumerism has resulted in lower prices and a higher standard of living. As demand rose and products became cheaper, consumers could spend less on items and have more money to spend on their quality of life.

Cons of consumerism

1. A high rate of consumption has caused a number of health issues that are now bordering on epidemics. Obesity, colon cancer, and other maladies can be attributed to overconsumption of certain foods. Sometimes too much choice can be deadly.
2. Consumerism has pushed the world towards climate change. In the drive to produce more for consumption, man has created a number of untenable processes that put great strain on the environment.
3. Overconsumption of energy is putting huge strain on earth’s natural resources. Mankind is making the push towards alternative energy right now because the decisions of the past century are haunting society. Extremely high levels of energy use result in higher prices for energy and goods.
4. Consumerism is creating more competition worldwide for resources. As resources dwindle and demand stays high, more people are competing for the same things. With increased competition comes increased tension.

In lieu of alternatives, consumerism is clearly the main driver of improvements worldwide. The “profit motive” is a strong one when it comes to making scientific discoveries that can advance the species. But clearly there are significant drawbacks to consumerism that have to be considered along with the advantages.

Consumerism lacks a strong moral code to go along with behavior. “Buy more” isn’t much of a mantra for people to base their lives on. And clearly, overconsumption can end up being just as much of a problem as any other. Consider that 100 years ago, people were concerned about starving to death. Although some people in parts of the world still face this challenge, millions of other people are more likely to get sick from the overconsumption of food that results in obesity.

Consumerism has become the driving force in most people’s lives, without a great deal of discussion. In the coming years it seems important to enter into a debate concerning the most effective ways to improve this system, while staying very aware of the peril that exists if consumerism gets out of hand and leads to overconsumption. The same sort of damage that happens on an individual basis happening on a global one could be devastating.

Many of these financing companies lent out money to consumers with very little regard for the Three C’s of Credit - Character, based on history of repaying debts; Capacity, the amount of debt that a consumer can comfortably afford to handle; and Capital, the current assets a consumer has.

If you happened to be a homeowner, you could get even more financing dollars by getting a HELOC - or home equity - loan that allowed you to borrow outrageous amounts of money based on the value of your home, sometimes up to 125% of its estimated value.

With this free flowing credit, consumers gorged on a buffet of spending. Whether it was to finance dream vacations, to purchase the latest electronic device or to pay for a night out on the town, the cash is long gone. Now all that remains of the ‘good time’ is a credit card bill with a high interest rate.

These companies helped facilitate the ability to “live beyond your means” as a lifestyle with no forethought as to what might happen should market conditions change, and now they’re left with a bag of burning poop on their doorstep as the economy has shifted.

They’ve addressed the issue by tightening their belts. They’ve canceled credit cards, decreased credit lines and increased interest rates, even on customers that have paid on time consistently.

It’s another reason people should rethink how they are doing business and about what products they choose to consume. Being an overweight, debt ridden consumer was never the American Dream, but somehow it has become a reality.

Cutting back simply can’t hurt and credit card companies aren’t your friend - they’re like the drug dealer that gives you the first hit for free knowing that you’re going to get hooked and give you enough rope to hang yourself if you aren’t careful.

William Shakespeare artfully said, “Neither a borrower, or a lender be.”

I believe he had things right.

Scientists immediately cheered the Obama decision. Researchers have been making due without federal funds, a factor that has made research difficult.

“It’s wonderful. We are elated,” Jan Nolta of the University of California at Davis said. “Now that we can use the federal funds, it will just go so much more quickly.”

Now that research using embryonic cells can receive federal funding, the debate concerning the ethics of such research will likely intensify.

A few distinctions should be made concerning stem cell research

A distinction should quickly be made concerning embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Adult stem cell research upsets few, and has been effectively used for years. Embryonic stem cell research has drawn the ire of religious conservatives who strongly believe that life begins at conception.

Cons of stem cell research

1. Embryonic stem cell research results in the destruction of embryonic life. Even this objection has already been theoretically answered. In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a break-through discovery that fuses “blank” embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities. This discovery doesn’t result in the death of fertilized human embryos, and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy. Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process.

* Note: Adult embryonic stem cell research have the same disadvantage. No life is lost in the procurement of adult stem cells.

Pros of stem cell research

1. Removing the ban on the federal funding of stem cell research will have enormous positive economic benefits for several US industries. Federal funds will push research much farther much faster.
2. Many fertility clinics already dispose of fetuses as medical waste, with no benefit to research or society. Some argue that since the fetuses are already being wasted, the “material” could be used to help others.
3. Stem cell research holds what has been described as “limitless potential” for medical research.

For Obama, the opportunity to fund research that could result in new cures for old conditions, as well as the chance to ramp up the economy with a flood of investment in biotechnology companies was too strong a lure to resist.

It also gave him a chance to reverse an unpopular decision made by former President George W. Bush. Several studies showed that the majority of Americans, despite some religious objections, are supportive of embryonic stem cell research. The United States, due to the ban on federal funding of research, currently lags behind several other countries in the study of stem cells. With this new push, that gap could quickly be narrowed.

Now that money’s tight everywhere, it might be time for a look at the policies that put so many non-violent offenders behind bars for minor offenses. Prison costs $29,000 per year per inmate, and there’s no guarantee that locking up so many people is having the desired effect.

The numbers released by Pew are humbling. In the last 25 years alone prison and jail populations have grown 274 percent to 2.3 million people in 2008.

Keeping this many people locked up cost states $51.7 billion. For states having trouble keeping up with their budgets, a change in policies might be worth a review.

The real savings comes from not locking up people who aren’t a danger to others. The cost to manage an offender through probation is only $1,250.00 per year. Compared to the $29,000 it costs to keep them in jail, the huge amounts of money could be used for more productive measures.

“Among the many programs that are competing for scarce taxpayer dollars, there is one area of the state budget that could use some trimming, and that area is corrections,” said Susan Urahn, the center’s managing director, in a call with reporters. “The bottom line is that states are spending too much.”

In a clear example of how screwed up many state’s priorities have become, penitentiary spending is second only to Medicaid as a cost.

In Detroit, the Pew group found a neighborhood where 1 out of 7 of all adults had some sort of connection with a felony conviction. Gelb suggested that resources could be diverted from imprisonment and focused on the neighborhood instead.

“Violent and career criminals need to be locked up, and for a long time. But our research shows that prisons are housing too many people who can be managed safely and held accountable in the community at far lower cost,” said Adam Gelb, director of the Center’s Public Safety Performance Project, which produced the report.

The Pew report shows there are too many people in jail, and society isn’t reaping much of a dividend from incarcerating them.

Globalization and high energy costs

Globalization probably caused the record energy prices, especially in transportation fuel, we saw in the 2007 and 2008. In fact, transportation costs became so high that the threat of de-globalization became a distinct possibility.

The impact of rising transportation costs, driven significantly by high oil prices, is already being seen in capital-intensive manufacturing that carry a high ratio of freight costs to the final sale price. But a new report has determined that higher energy prices are affecting transport costs at such an unprecedented rate that “the cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the largest barrier to global trade today.

As transportation costs rose, the one main advantage of continued wage arbitrage with China began to evaporate. Even though the Chinese could build the products cheaply, what good would it do foreign companies who were spending exorbitant amounts on shipping?

Transportation fuel costs have dropped significantly since 2008, but the discussion about globalization has taken on a negative turn in 2009. The recent Davos forum saw a number of high-ranking financial industry and political leaders questioning the future of globalization and unconstrained capitalism.

“Defenders of free markets find ourselves in the unusual position where we have to accept and acknowledge that unconstrained capitalism is actually destructive,” said Leo Tilman. “How do we balance need for economic dynamism with a viable economy and proper regulation?”

One factor fueling the debate about the problems of globalization relates to the tough time western workers are currently experiencing. Wage arbitrage has made enormous profits for companies, but had done little to improve wages or the standard of living of workers in developed nations.

The gap between rich and poor has never been greater than it’s become during the age of globalization, which took flight in earnest in the 1980s. In that time, the divide between haves and have-nots has become canyone-esque. Of course other factors are at play also, but the effects of globalization on certain countries as been demonstrably negative.

Of course inequality is nothing new, and globalization isn’t the sole cause of it, but it can’t be overlooked as a factor. For Americans, globalization has been a mixed bag.

The main benefits of globalization for Americans are in the areas of cost and choice. You can shop in any American store and find a dizzying array of products, with many at extremely cheap prices. However, with unemployment at extraordinarily high levels, these cheap prices have come with a high price tag for the American worker. With more unemployed people, low cost products aren’t exactly flying off the shelves.

Barack Obama and a new era of protectionism

President Barack Obama has already been accused of espousing protectionist views. China protested about a “Buy American” clause in his Stimulus plan. The statement was later watered down to appease critics.

Even Canada, America’s largest trade partner, is worried about protectionism from the new administration. Although Canadian leadership left a recent meeting with Obama convinced that he wasn’t planning on re-drafting the NAFTA agreement, there are still concerns that American companies are seeking protectionist help under the guise of “security and safety concerns”.

“One of the things I’m beginning to learn in trade matters is one of the tricks of the trade. You can get an industry … come forward to their government and say, ‘As a safety issue, or as a security issue, we need to demand this from Canadian products coming in.’ Sometimes that can be a bona fide safety and security issue. A lot of times it’s what we call a non-tariff barrier and they will use that,” Mr. Day said.

Obama has only been in office for less than a month, so his position on the issues of globalization aren’t particularly clear. One thing is certain, though. He won the election in large part due to his appeal to American workers who are hoping his administration will protect their interests. Whether that happens at the expense of globalization remains to be seen. Workers in the U.S. and around the world are extremely interested in what happens next with the global economy. One thing is clear, never before have the fortunes of so many people worldwide been so intertwined economically. When things are going bad, that doesn’t necessarily feel like a great thing.

Disadvantages of Globalization

1. For developed economies, globalization means a loss of higher paying jobs as companies seek the cheapest skilled labor at the lowest cost.
2. The threat of jobs being offshored is enough to keep morale low in many industries. People who are walking on pins and needles because of the threat their job will be moved to another country are not the most confident consumers around.
3. The new workers in new counties may not have the same skill levels as the workers they replaced. In that case, product quality suffers.
4. Globalization also represents the transfer of societal ideals to companies who may not be ready for massive changes. In extreme cases, this could result in social instability.
5. A real threat exists that workers in less developed countries might be exploited by foreign companies. These companies are attempting to make the maximum profit and probably won’t pay or treat workers as well as they do in their home country.
6. Transportation costs become more expensive as products are shipped to countries from much further than they used to be.
7. Energy consumption in developing markets increases, which puts pressure on domestic supplies and pricing. Energy costs go up for everyone as more people compete for the resources.

Pros of Globalization

1. Workers in less developed countries should see an increase in wages and living benefits. If they do, their rising standard of living should help them consume products from developed nations. A virtuous circle can theoretically be created by a whole new middle class that didn’t exist.
2. Peace should be easier to maintain between nations as no country would remain isolated in this new world order. The relationship of China and the United States has changed dramatically as their trade partner status has increased over the years.
3. Globalization can help modernize developing countries faster. Modern ideas can be spread to the workers, who make up the social order.
4. Products can be purchased much cheaper in developing countries, which increases the lifestyle of the people. As we pay less for simple common items, we have more to spend on big ticket items, which fuel higher paid manufacturing jobs in developed countries.

When oil prices hit $150/barrel last year, many of the disadvantages of globalization seemed to come to the forefront. More countries expanding using oil based products means prices went up. Much of this price was speculation, but a large part was from the transportation of goods throughout the world. As oil hit record highs, companies looked for local suppliers in order to defray costs.

Globalization, and the role of the United States, are two of the issues that are most pressing to Barack Obama. Many of his concerns, like job creation, center around our role as a leader of globalization. If he tries to hard at protectionism, or favors certain manufacturing industries against other, chances are the US will be called on it by multiple trading partners. China, for one, has already pointedly visited the US and Europe to ask that efforts aimed at stabilizing the economy didn’t involve protectionism.

A “Buy American” clause in the proposed economic stimulus plan has already been struck down for this reason. The next several months promise to be a challenging time for developing and developed economies alike. The decisions that are made in that time-frame are bound to impact all of us for decades.

“Breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face,” Obama said in August.

“It will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy,” he said.

America is hooked on foreign oil and the addiction is hurting the country in many ways

The most obvious change would be a massive push for cars that run on alternative energy. Since the government has now invested so much in the auto manufacturers with TARP bailout funds, it would not be unexpected that the Obama administration puts more pressure than ever for alternative vehicles, as well as increased fuel efficiency standards.

T. Boone Pickens wants natural gas and battery-operated cars to replace current models

Decreasing the need for crude oil by replacing cars with one that run on natural gas is a big hit with T. Boone Pickens, who owns the largest natural gas reserves in the United States.

“This is like a deck of cards, and I’ve removed the winning hand,” he said. “I’ve removed the trump card, the natural gas. You cannot get to the conclusion that we can reduce foreign oil in quantities that are meaningful without natural gas.”

Pickens has been promoting a simple plan that would split vehicles into light and heavy categories. Light vehicles, like passenger cars, could be run on batteries. Heavy vehicles, like commercial trucks, would be converted to run on natural gas. The switch would be easy enough, and would ween the country off of crude oil that tends to benefit regimes that are hostile to U.S. interests.

“This is the most unbelievable opportunity for a president of the United States,” Pickens said.

The main complaint about alternative energy vehicles in the past has always boiled down to lack of reliability and price. In order to get consumers to switch, the cars need to perform as well as gas powered ones do, and must cost about the same. In fact, in order to get the massive sort of adoption needed to switch our nation to these new vehicles, it would be even better if the cars would cheap. Cheaper, lighter cars with fuel efficiency built-in would probably appeal to most consumers who haven’t yet forgotten the pain of paying $4.50/gallon at the pump.

It also seems likely that the Obama team will embrace wind, solar, and nuclear energy in the coming years. All these forms of energy production are potentially superior to current electrical generation methods, especially in their impact on the environment.

Obama is attempting to stimulate the moribund economy with a public works project of immense magnitude. He’s hoping to create jobs by pushing the country to a green future. So far few details have emerged on how he’ll accomplish the task, but public buildings will be an obvious place to start. In the next few weeks and months we can expect a flurry of activity concerning exactly what proposals are taking shape.

The agency is not requiring labeling or any other additional measures for food from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or their offspring because food derived from these sources is no different from food derived from conventionally bred animals. Should a producer express a desire for voluntary labeling (e.g., “this product is clone-free”), it will be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with statutory requirements that labeling be truthful and not misleading.

Right now if you order meat, you have no way of knowing if it came from cloned animals, or not. And according to the FDA, it’s exactly as safe as the original. Since cloning animals is now considered to be status quo, it might be worth a look at the disadvantages of cloning animals.

• Clones are not as viable as fresh offspring. Estimates currently say that about 1 out of 90 clones survive. It’s a vast improvement from the original total of 1 out of 276 tried it took to clone Dolly, but it’s still not the most effective of raising animals for food production
• Cloning represents a loss of genetic diversity. A major loss in genetic diversity can cause a species to be less disease resistant
• Clones are not always exact replicas of the original. Randomness can cause genetic variations, even amongst clone offspring.
• Some studies have found that clones are prone to disease.
• Some studies show that clones die younger than normal animals
• Cloned animals don’t behave like their parents. For pet owners who wish to clone beloved animals, many anecdotal reports show that the new animal is nothing like the original behaviorally

Animal cloning is troubling from technical issues, but it’s also a big concern from an ethical standpoint. The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) has taken a stand on the ethics of cloning animals.

The EGE Opinion concludes that “considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, the EGE has doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified. Whether this applies also to progeny is open to further scientific research. At present, the EGE does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.” The EGE also identifies requirements for future action should food from cloned animals be introduced into Europe in the future.

Despite the disadvantages of animal cloning, the process has already been introduced into the American food supply, without the requirement of proper labeling. Consumers don’t even get the choice of deciding whether they would prefer traditionally raised animal products, or cloned ones. The FDA ruled in the favor of introducing clones to our food system, despite complaints from scores of scientists.

“Although the products of cloned animals and their progeny will most likely be safe for human consumption, we would like to see more comprehensive studies, specifically designed to examine food safety,” Dr. Margaret Mellon, Director of UCS’s Food and Environment Program said in 2006. “If consumers aren’t going to be told if their meat is from a clone, FDA has to be certain that meat is safe.”

Despite a great number of disadvantages to cloning animals, it looks like the practice will continue to grow in popularity in coming years.

Human cloning seems like an inevitability. When you consider how much progress man has made in the arena of cloning animals, you realize that scientists will want to bring the same technology to bear on humans. The idea of clones make sense. More that cloning animals, though, human cloning carries a dizzying array of ethical concerns that must be sorted out before man begins down this path in earnest. Let’s examine some of the disadvantages of human cloning now.

Human clones as property

The biggest disadvantage to cloning comes from the creation of a “clone class” of people, who by law, have no human rights. It doesn’t take a long study of history to know that any class of people who have less rights than the class in prevailing power tends to suffer at the hands of the elite. Clones would have no protections under law, and no basic rights. To say the least, unscrupulous people would likely push clone abuse to the very limits of human endurance if no such safeguards are put in place.

Clones: where is the love?

One thing that clearly separates man from animals is man’s capacity to love. Humankind has done miraculous, and even dreadful things in the name of love, which is probably our most powerful emotion. Will clones be loved by the “regular humans”?

Equally important, can the clones feel love towards the “regulars”, the elite class which reigns over them? Will they show capacity for the full range of human emotions, or will they be stunted on a basic level? Without answers to these questions, the effect of introducing clones to modern society is a risky proposition.

The introduction of clones to modern society will cause major social upheaval

The introduction of a clone class of people will cause an immediate social division by human groups not seen since the days of slavery. If clones are merely chattle to be abused, sold, and profited from, their low social standing will ensure they lack all opportunities and any path for advancement. If their intellect is in tact, then their level of resentment towards their “creators” is bound to be palpable.

If the disenfranchisement becomes great enough, the clones might do what many other downtrodden classes of people have done before them. They will revolt against the power structure and demand equal rights.

If cloning technology falls into the wrong hands, there could be disastrous consequences

What is Al Qaeda discovered the technology to easily make human clones? Undoubtedly they’d use them for “suicide bombing” missions, or worse. Any military, including the military of the west, would be attracted to the idea of using “expendable” people to fight conflicts. So what if a few thousand clones were killed, they would surmise. “I can always make more.”

The type of people who are most interested in the benefits of human cloning are the types of folks we most have to worry about. Clones could be used as slave labor for many nefarious activities, and in the worst case scenarios, clones would become advanced weaponry.

Creating clones cheapens life

Cloning is a strong step towards turning humans into commodities. Cloning is a building block towards the mass production of human life. Clones make people easy to replace and non-unique. Crass commercialism in the form of a “clone market” would put a dollar figure on people and life. That’s a step on a slippery slope, if ever there were one. People need to have a strong respect for life in order to appreciate the world they live in. If many come to think of life as something that’s easily created in a test tube, the miracle of human existence becomes something much more plain and course.

Right now, the technology to clone humans is either available, or very nearly ready. The only thing stopping current scientists from experimenting with cloning is the legality. Human cloning is illegal in much of the world, despite a great amount of support from supporters of the technology who see the advantages of cloning in medical research.

Current world leaders have decided that the disadvantages of human cloning currently outweigh the advantages. As the debate broadens into academic, scientific, and spiritual circles, a strict code of ethics concerning how to proceed will need to be drawn, and enforced. Without tight governance, human cloning could quickly descend into a nightmare endeavor.