—fantasy fantastique ... July 25, 2007
When we are first introduced to the concept (of cloning) it is all too easy to be fully in favor of it. It is indeed difficult to find fault with the prospect of replacing vital organs, for example, if and when such need arises.
Hypothetically, we could become real-life versions of the energizer bunny, going and going and going, perhaps forever. What is to stop it but the money to pay for it?
There is one particular aspect of the process though, that I have been pondering for some time now. It has to do with cloning a complete human being, not simply its mere parts.
I do not refer of course to what we are pleased to call an average person. I'm talking about the beauties in our midst, the highly desirable young women who always seem to be around, teasing us into virtual comas.
What if we could clone them? It is a venture that—I dare say—many a rambunctious young man has given some serious thought to. What I am specifically wondering though, is whether or not having sex with such a clone would constitute infidelity (assuming that you are married or otherwise attached).
In all honesty, this feels highly doubtful.
A cloned woman would not be a person. A cloned Miss Universe, for example, would not have her memories and thus her soul.
So, in a very real sense, you would not actually be having sex with whoever the current Miss Universe might be, any more than if you masturbated while looking at one of her photographs, or videos.
Reduced to its finest essence, sex with a clone will be nothing more than a form of masturbation, very likely the most sophisticated form of masturbation imaginable.
And that is truly all it would be.
But despite the prohibitive expense associated with it, if it ever were to become fully possible, I'm sure that the super-rich billionaires would not hesitate to get themselves a copy of whoever happened to be the latest hot model.
And the models likely would not mind since it would be yet another source of income for them. They would command the leverage to sell a single hair from their head for an exorbitant price, which irresistibly prompts us to question whether such a transaction might be considered a form of prostitution.
But I suspect that things might never develop to such an extent. The ability to acquire wealth from the sale of a single hair (or drop of saliva left on a straw or glass) would prompt all sorts of devious efforts to acquire such samples.
Such pirating would no doubt prompt the beauties to be obsessively careful about anything they touched. They might even resort to walking around with plastic shower caps on their heads lest a single hair should find its way into some unscrupulous counterfeiting hands.
But what sort of life would this be? Surely not one that is in any way appealing.
In other words, the ability to master the science that would enable us to clone an entire person is rife with complexities, and there will no doubt be much legal and ethical wrangling over it.
It is even conceivable that there would be interest in cloning deceased lovelies, Marilyn Monroe for example, regarded by many as one of the sexiest women to ever haunt the planet. If this were to become feasible would such cloning be an instance of violating a person's estate? It boggles the mind.
There is already a precedent for this sort of thing (having sex with soulless women, i.e., the facsimiles of such women). I refer to the expensive "love dolls" that are currently available (for anyone who has $6,000.00 to pay for one). At present they are made only from synthetic materials, but enhancing them with human DNA is surely being considered.
Whether we approve of it or not, we must concede that the desire for sex is powerful enough to fuel the effort to accomplish such sophisticated cloning. Coupled with the desire to live forever, it is difficult to imagine that we will prevent it from happening.
It is all too easy to place the practice of having sex with a clone in the same camp with prostitution, an activity that we do indeed legislate against, but essentially waste our time doing so. Essentially, the primal urge to live and reproduce is much stronger than the social urge to legislate.