Volume 12, Number 3         27 September 2005




Click, to go back to the contents of this issue

This Week



We appreciate feedback from our readers
Browse through the collecton of older issues



"LIFE ETC."

Scarlett Johansson On A Production Line?

It's impossible for a normal person to confuse a mug with a man (what a great start for this column!). As we all know, a mug is a simple product made by humans for the purpose of serving them. On the other hand, a man is a more complicated being created by God (or Nature, depending on what you believe in) and rarely knows what/whom to serve. Thus, we can say that there's a huge difference between us and what we produce.

Imagine that you're sitting in a room with a friend of yours and are very very VERY angry about some unrelated thing; you have to direct your anger somewhere in order to feel relieved. Which one would you pick as a target? Your friend or a mug? A normal civilized person would pick the latter, of course. (If you think you'd hit your friend just to feel better, the rest of this newspaper might be too complicated for you. Please hand it to someone who can understand it.)

But, what if we produce a man instead of a mug? Does his status of being a product change the idea that hurting him is immoral? Would it be legal to have a cloned slave?

Two movies dealing with such questions are being shown these days: "The Island" and Godsend." In my opinion, the former is a successful science fiction/action film, while "Godsend" is a pathetic attempt to use genetic engineering's negative side to scare the audience. If we leave our critiques of the films aside, and focus on what they say about cloning, we see two different aspects of the problem: "The Island" tells about how tragic it is to be a clone, while "Godsend" illustrates the inevitability of the use of such a technology if it happens to exist.

I'm sure that two centuries ago, it wouldn't have been a problem to answer the questions I've asked. In the days when women, peasants and people of color didn't have any rights, why would an artificial man count? These days, however, it's not that simple. Right now, everyone with human DNA has some rights (even Ajdar Anık, as a free citizen, has the right to sing). But there might be another view of this issue, although it doesn't seem logical to me: if we can use anything we produce the way we want, why shouldn't we use a living human product? I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate, but I'm afraid the majority have already started to ignore the alternative views, and we're losing the chance to come up with viable answers.

Since we know that our biological and genetic features aren't very different from those of other animals, it wouldn't shock me if an institute decides to clone human beings tomorrow--probably, some are already doing it secretly.

In one way or another, it's a possibility that we'll have factories (or institutes, or whatever you might call them) producing Homo sapiens within decades. It would be wise to ask and try to answer questions about what our mainstream ethics really are before that day comes. Otherwise, reality will catch us out.

İsmail O. Postalcıoğlu (POLS/III)
ismail_orhan@yahoo.com

 Click, to go back to the contents of this issue








Bilkent News Welcomes Feedback From Readers.
This newsletter will print letters received from readers.
Please submit your letters to bilnews@bilkent.edu.tr
or to the Communications Unit, Engineering Building, room EG-23, ext. 1487.
The Editorial Board will review the letters and print according to available space.