Essay 7

Essay 7: Clone Voting Rights

Here is an example of an ethical issue that requires a fair amount of imagination to work through. I will keep it as simple as possible since my goal is only to give you something to think about. I don’t really expect you to find a solution.

Imagine that we are several centuries into the future and the science of cloning has advanced to the point where we can make unlimited copies of any person. While we are making grand assumptions, let us also assume that humans have been refined to the point that we only need a few thousand humans to represent all the variety we need to propagate the human race. And all clones are copies of one of those refined humans. They are referred to as a clone pool. If Smith is a refined human who owns a clone pool, it would simply be called Smith’s Clone Pool.

We can assume that clones made from a given refined human are biologically identical. So, let’s assume that all biologically identical clones are raised together to ensure identical experiences. This accounts for nature and nurture, so the clones are, for all intent and purposes, identical. The only thing unique about a clone would be their name which is computer generated to insure uniqueness.

It is possible to individuate specific clones for different kinds of tasks. But that is done at the discretion of the refined human from which they were derived. For example, some clones are made as spare parts in the event that the refined human needs a spare part. These clones are kept away from dangerous work and their diets are limited lest they do something to compromise the spare parts. Some clones might be trained for management roles. Others might be trained for work that is difficult physically, or intellectually. So, the clones are identical except for the interventions done by the owners.

Until recently clones were treated as unique humans for social and political purposes. If a crime was committed, the specific clone who committed the crime had to be found. If a specific clone was not uncovered, the entire clone pool would be punished in some way. Since there was always somebody who would know who the criminal was, this was not a problem. In the political system, the rule of one person one vote was still in place. However, this was being challenged.

Some of the wealthier refined humans were creating large clone pools and indoctrinating the clones in the pool to vote according to the owner’s wishes. If a few wealthy clone pool owners got together, they could sway any election. In order to address this problem, several proposals have been made. One proposal suggested that only the refined human should be allowed to vote. Another one suggested that each refined human and each clone pool should have one vote. The idea here was that identical clones did not add any variety to the political process. Another proposal suggested that select clones be allowed to vote and that voting clones should be certified to vote by public courses which presented them with the salient issues in the election. Yet another proposal suggested that clones should be able to vote on issues that would directly affect them. For example, if a clone did hazardous work, they could vote on issues that affected work safety. Finally, the majority feel that things should remain as they are with one person one vote and the problem would sort itself out over time.

Consider the following questions:

Which of the current proposals sounds best?

Are there any other possibilities that should be considered?

What principles do we hold dearly today that might make it difficult to select a workable solution?

How can one get past today’s thinking and solve this problem in terms of the future world where it occurs?

This essay is just short of 700 words. And the recording is about 5 minutes long.

Send an email to me at drjohnartz@gmail.com if you have a comment on any of my essays. And please check out my website at DrJohnArtz.com to see other things I have written.