savethehumans.com
Shock therapy for planet Earth.
Back to: home last page

Anti-Cloning Pussies and the People Against Cloning Cats

Printable Version

by Jason Roth

A story came out recently about a woman who purchased a $50,000 carbon copy of her dead cat. The Associated Press covered it in an article entitled "First cloned cat sold in the U.S."

The article is really not so much about the cloned cat, but about the so-called "fierce ethical and scientific debate over cloning technology". I have just one question for the A.P. folks. Doesn't a "debate" usually have an affirmative case and a negative case? What happened to the affirmative, guys? Forget that part?

Not a single piece of evidence in favor of cloning is offered in the entire article, but of course there are plenty of pseudo-arguments against it. Actually, there is one single quote that praises the effects of cloning: "He is identical. His personality is the same," said "Julie", the woman who had the $50,000 to burn. Of course, the personality, as an animal behaviorist correctly states later in the article, is not the same. So this single statement is just a straw man which will later be knocked down.

If we want to be really generous to the A.P., we could say that the one other positive statement about cloning concerned the potential wealth that could be made by cloning pets. ("The company that created Little Nicky, Sausalito-based Genetic Savings and Clone, said it hopes by May to have produced the world's first cloned dog -- a much more lucrative market than cats.") But the A.P. squashes that idea nicely with this sentence which finishes off the entire article: "The company has yet to turn a profit." Nice one, guys.

So now let's look at all the bogus pseudo-arguments against cloning and play another edition of "name that fallacy":

• "'It's morally problematic and a little reprehensible,' said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University. 'For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays.'"

First of all, "Dr. Magnus" sounds like the name of a pornographic comic book villain. How's that for a logical refutation, doc? Second of all, the inclusion of this phallic fiend's comment on what this lady might or mightn't have done with her $50,000 is what's known as ignoratio elenchia, specifically: a red herring. An emotional appeal for the purpose of distraction. You might even call this a double-header, with a dose of argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity) thrown in for good measure. The cloning "debate" that I've heard sure hasn't had anything to do with its cost. It's been about whether human beings should do it at all, at any price.

• Next: "Animals rights activists complain that new feline production systems aren't needed because thousands of stray cats are euthanized each year for want of homes."

They aren't "needed", huh? Needed by whom? This lady didn't want the strays, and obviously the complaining animal rights activists didn't either, otherwise all those cats wouldn't be getting the death penalty. (I picture Garfield and Heathcliff in electric chairs. No, Heathcliff was too cool for that. I bet he would have broken out of cat prison long before the executioner said "Here, kitty, kitty.") I'm going to go out on a limb here and identify this fallacy as a straw man. It presumes that the purpose of cloning is the mere "production" of cats, then goes on to argue that an ample supply of cats already exist. The point fails to address the actual reason why this particular cat ("Little Nicky", in case you care) was cloned. No shit, the woman could have found another cat. I think we can safely assume that maybe it occurred to her that she could have gotten another cat for less than fifty grand.

• Here's another classic: "Critics also complain that the technology is available only to the wealthy, that using it to create house pets is frivolous and that customers grieving over lost pets have unrealistic expectations of what they're buying. In fact, the first cat cloned in 2001 had a different coat from its genetic donor, underscoring that environment and other biological variables make it impossible to exactly duplicate animals."

Ok, you raving, fucking lunatic journalist, let's take your idiocy one piece at a time.

Whether the technology is only available to the wealthy (or any other group) doesn't address whether the use of that technology is good or bad. If the technology is good, then what we'd want is more people using it, not fewer. Heart surgery and Rolls Royces cost a lot of money, too. If you can't afford heart surgery, Rolls Royces, or $50,000 kittens, you're perfectly free not to fucking buy one. Arguing that the technology is bad because its use is limited to the wealthy is an argumentum ad invidiam (argument from envy). I.e., "if poor people can't have it, then god dammit, no one should!" Calling cloning "frivolous" is another appeal to emotion.

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!"

Back to: home last page