The "unrealistic expectations" of the customers is another non-argument against cloning. Ok, so cloning does not recreate the dead pet in every respect. But the potential ignorance of customers about the nature of cloning yields no ethical conclusions about the cloning process itself. The implied argument is: "The customers think that cloning is good because of X, but since cloning is actually Y, cloning must be bad." This fallacy is a good one: argumentum ad logicam (the "fallacy fallacy"). Just because one person's argument about X is fallacious, it doesn't mean that their conclusion about X is necessarily wrong. It just means they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. Cloning might be good to them. "Good" in the sense of "the damn cat looks close enough" and "I like the damn cat". Whether or not every strand of hair is the same as the old cat because the new cat is getting Fancy Feast instead of Meow Mix isn't relevant to whether the customer has gained a value.
And another thing. If you're so concerned about customers being ignorant about the definition of the word "cloning" and misspending their $50,000, then educate them. This is some of the most pretentious nonsense imaginable. You're acting like an anti-cloning Jack Nicholson, screaming, "You want the cat? You can't handle the cat!"
- And, finally: "Scientists also warn that cloned animals suffer from more health problems than their traditionally bred peers and that cloning is still a very inexact science. It takes many gruesome failures to produce just a single clone."
The first and second halves of this paragraph are more appeals to emotion. Specifically, fear. "Gruesome failures" almost sounds like it's supposed to be a joke. The "gruesome failures" referred to must be the "between 15 percent and 45 percent of cloned cats born alive [that] die within the first 30 days". Oh, wait a second. The chief executive at the cloning company is quoted as saying, "that range is consistent with natural births, depending on the breed of cat." So, by "gruesome", the A.P. writer must mean "as gruesome as nature". Oooh... nature. Scary stuff! I can't tell you how many times I've woken up at night in a cold sweat dreaming of cats giving birth. I wish I could get rid of those nightmares. Especially the one with the cameo by the really gruesome monster I like to call "Sniffles".
Now that we've torched the anti-cloning bias, I'd like to comment on the comment by the owner of this $50,000 cat. Julie's comment, quoted earlier, that "He is identical. His personality is the same."
His personality is the same? I have to tell you, Julie, I'm not all that surprised. You know why? Because it's a fucking cat! If the new cat got into a car and tried to run you down, cursing at you and calling you a dumb bimbo for producing your own big-budget remake of Pet Cemetery, then I'd be surprised. But if he chases after your catnip-laced sock like a heroin addict quitting a la canona, just like your old, rotting cat used to do, I wouldn't call that an "identical personality". It's a cat, for Christ's sake! Cats tend to act like cats! That's what cats do!
And a final message to the anti-cloning brigade. Get over your fear of science already. You're in the same crowd as those who wanted to ban fire and the others who said we couldn't fly. Your view of humankind is so low that any really amazing scientific advance is "against nature" or "playing God".
Damn straight, it's playing God. Someone ought to. The mere act of building shelter is "playing God" and "against nature". Feel free to leave your environment untouched. Go outside, eat your berries, and bow down before your all-power nature. The rest of us will be inside receiving modern medical care, using our computers, eating farm-raised livestock, consuming energy that keeps us warm, and otherwise enjoying ourselves. And if we can afford it, then sure, why the hell not: playing with a new copy of an old pet.
For more on fallacies, check out the fallacy section of this pretty good essay, which I referred to while writing this. Unfortunately, he missed the argumentum ad phallus, also known as the phallic fallacy, arguing from one's penis. Example: "She's really smart. Just look at her!"
