In pursuit of the past...
Well, Happy Christmas to all those in the northern hemisphere, and to all those in south of the world who got their presents hours earlier than anyone else…bwah!
‘Tis the day for happiness, family and copious amounts of presents…so if you want to save the doom, gloom and politics for later, I’d advise you not to read any further. I’ll just say have a great day/enjoy sleeping off the after effects and leave it at that.
I’d have left this until a later date, but I’ll lose motivation if I do, and this is a topic I feel fairly strongly on.
I’ve put this behind a cut, because it is quite a serious downer, and I don’t want to be the one to ruin your day. Read on at your own discretion.
It was announced in the media today (24th December) that “Little Nicky,” the first commercially cloned cat, was delivered to his Texan owner. Therefore, it is an issue that contains capitalism, vivisection, animal rights, human rights, the great science debate and a large dollop of fairly mind-boggling philosophy.
Since I’m sick to death of essays that required me to research exactly what everyone else said before I even ventured an opinion of my own, this ain’t no science paper. It’s pure gut reaction and emotional reasoning, but contrary to what our scientist friends would have us think, that’s every bit as valid and valuable as statistics and analysis.
The core of the argument is really “Has science gone too far?” There now exists an animal - a living, breathing being, a cute fuzzy kitten - who was manufactured as a copy of a creature who had already existed, had already lived out its life. It was created by a company for profit, not for any more altruistic reasons (made painfully clear when the company voiced its hope to soon have the first cloned dog, as dogs were a more “lucrative” market).
A few years ago, one of our cats, Samson, was run over by a car. He dragged himself home in a superhuman effort comparable to his namesake, and was petted, fussed over and fed chicken before dying at the vet’s a couple of days later, despite efforts to save him. Samson was a gentle giant of a cat, a huge, lovable, black behemoth of a moggy with a tendency to drool when happy and a penchant for having his tummy tickled. Killed by some bastard who didn’t even stop to see what he’d hit, left to crawl home over two days with a two broken hind legs.
Before that, a similar fate befell TC - a stray cat who had wandered into our home and stayed there. He was hit by a car too, found the next morning by neighbours who just threw him in a dustbin, but who at least had the decency to come and inform us. TC was even more of a suck-up than Sam. TC would leave his food to come and sit on your lap, came when called, was forever supervising whatever went on in the garden. Wherever we were, TC was never far away, especially from Gran, who he adored.
Mitzi was the neighbour’s cat, but when her owner, the daughter of the family, moved away, she was pretty much abandoned. Like TC, feeding her out the back garden turned into her permanent residence at our house. Although fairly affectionate, she was reserved and ladylike, enjoying her privacy as well as a little TLC. She had to be put down when she grew so weak she could no longer eat.
Merry was queen of all she surveyed. She’d been the family pet before I was even born, and considered myself and my sisters as kittens who had to be kept in hand and taught where the boundaries lie (ie - “Pick me up and die.”) She was proud and aloof, and affection was strictly on her terms. My first cat, and probably responsible for my love of animals, Merry had to be put down at the respectable age of 19, when her body grew too weak and impaired for her spirit.
I loved my cats. I still do. And yes, I do hold out the belief that we’ll meet again.
What do you think I wouldn’t give to have them back with me? To have Samson lounging by the fire and keeping Corrie (currently asleep on top of the monitor) in line, Merry overseeing the cooking in the kitchen, Mitzi asleep on the bad and TC on my lap? What do you think I wouldn’t do to turn back the clock so that Dad never put TC out for the night that evening, or made sure I knew where Samson was before he disappeared?
Would I clone them? Not a chance.
You see, it wouldn’t be them. To clone them would be an insult to them and the part they played in my life, not to mention the new animal I was ordering to take their place. It wouldn’t matter how good the copy was, the clone would not be Samson, Merry, TC or Mitzi. It’d be a different cat, one with its own personality and its own life to forge. Doesn’t matter if it’s not sentient as humans understand it, it would have a right to live a different life than the creature whose DNA was used to create it, no matter whether it understood the philosophy of a such a right or not. I have no right to force them to conform to what I want them to be rather than what they are. That doesn’t just apply to clones of course - it’s a lesson stage/pageant mothers and pedigree breeders would do well to remember too.
Some of you might be alarmed that I put animals (pedigree cats/dogs) on the same level as humans (children). Guess what? This is exactly what science is doing right now. According to science, you’re as replaceable as the ewe that was used to clone Dolly the sheep.
Religion has been replaced by the new God of Science, and quite frankly, given Science’s credentials, I’ll stick to the dude born in a manger a couple of millennia ago. HE said all of us, human, animal and plant, are unique and special. Each one of us counts for something. (And don’t go fetching the anti-God brigade, I’ve got as much right to believe in God as any atheist has to not believe in God.) To the disciples of pure science (no, I don’t believe science itself is bad - see below) we’re all guinea pigs, every one of us viable test subjects for the experiment du jour. Don’t believe me? Go listen to these guys on TV, the ones who say those who even consider the possibility that science has gone too far as naysayers and dinosaurs.
Humans are insatiably curious. But the curiosity that’s ensured our evolution unfortunately didn’t appear to come with the capacity to say “Hang on a minute, is this really such a good idea?” We’re the equivalent of the toddler who won’t believe the cooker will hurt them until they put their hand on a hotplate and get burned. And even then, the toddler will likely learn from their mistake. Science pushes forward, yes, but it doesn’t stop to re-evaluate, doesn’t retrace its steps to start over again and avoid a potential disaster. Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught us the devastation caused by nuclear bombs; it didn’t stop us not only from making more of them, but developing them to cause even more destruction. Given our horrific track record from that escapade, do you really think “designer babies” are just a myth?
Imagine living life as a designer baby. To know that there was even a possibility that you had no say in who you were? It doesn’t matter whether that’s true or not, if it’s a consideration, that’s bad enough. That you might believe you had to meet required specifications in order to be viewed as a success story - if you become an actor when your parents wanted a pro-athlete, no cigar, better try again and hope the next kid works out. We’re insecure enough in this day and age without that becoming a factor.
There’s one thing designer babies and cloning have in common: they infringe on our basic right to be ourselves. “Designer” kids will be expected to meet their parents’ criteria for success, clones must walk in the footsteps of someone who is dead. Doesn’t that strike anyone else as more than a little morbid? (Is there something vaguely "Pet Shop of Horrors" - be careful what you wish for - in all of this, or am I just dreading the end of that series in January a little too much?)
This is nothing new. Cloning isn't progress, it's an attempt to recapture a past that we've lost - and a futile attempt at that. And palmistry, astrology, and tarot have all tried to define who we are for centuries, when who we are isn’t really something we can define. But no science claims it can create a person (person!) who can be defined, whose character will be decided by other people. We try to rationalise existence through methods we’re too naïve to understand, and too irresponsible to control.
I am Jennifer. I am a very specific Jennifer, different to everyone else with that name in the past, present and future. I am who I am through a mix of DNA, life experience, perception and something else far more difficult to define, whether you call it my spirit, my personality or my soul. I hold some views that are the same as my parents’, some that are drastically different. I have personality traits that emulate them, others that don’t fit in anywhere. Maybe they sometimes wish I was more dynamic, or more practical, but I’m not, and they accept that because it’s who I am. The fact that my personality deviates from “standard” doesn’t make me imperfect, it makes me unique.
Little Nicky’s owner says his personality is exactly the same as his predecessor’s. I seriously doubt that’s even possible. Worse, what happens when those difference become apparent? What if the original Nicky would sit on her lap, but the new Nicky won’t stay there for more than two seconds? What if one liked chicken and the other despises it? Those are not categories that make or break the measurement of success in life, but for Little Nicky, any attempt to create his own personality will be viewed as “failing” to meet requirements (and this is a cat we’re talking about people, so he’s got no idea what’s expected of him) and possibly sharply “corrected.” It’s like the pedigrees that have existed for years, where colour variation or skeletal structure is the difference between a blue ribbon and being put down. But now it’s moving on to deciding what is “acceptable” in an animal’s personality. That’s just wrong - my Corrie may be a prize git when he wants to be, and sometimes I wistfully wish he were a little more affectionate, but I wouldn’t change him for all the money in the world.
We just don’t have a right to do that! Who are we to judge what’s perfect and what’s not? We can’t even be relied upon to make our minds up for more than two minutes! Look at the standards of female beauty over the ages for crying out loud - humans (males in particular) cannot stick to a decision!
I understand why Little Nicky’s owner did what she did, presuming she’s acting on emotion and not curiosity. She had a pet she loved, a pet that was with her for 17 years. Then he died, and she wanted him back. That’s not evil or feckless, that’s human. The fact that she couldn’t give her real name for fear of violent reprisals is sad (come on people, can’t we have a reasonable debate without killing each other?). Whatever the decision, that little cat is now alive and has a right to exist. But there were scientists who stood to make money out of her wish to have her pet back. They ended up with a ridiculous amount of money by taking advantage of a woman’s love for her pet.
You can see how the argument goes in circles. That the kitty lives proves he has a right to exist. But if we say cloning is wrong, does that mean the creatures who would theoretically be cloned do not have a right to exist? Science would argue that to deny them existence is wrong, which is similar to the Catholic church’s stance on contraception that says you deny a child that might be born the right to exist if you use contracetion, but then science generally never agrees with the church and…anyone else getting a headache?
We’re on dangerous ground here. Religious convictions/lack thereof aside, most of us have a high regard for freedom and individuality. Even people like me who can’t stand children ponder the mystery of what seems no more than a chemical reaction taking on a personality, making decisions, dreaming, loving people, leading a totally unique life. Stroppy teenagers are right: no-one can truly understand us. We are so diverse, so individual, so magical, than no-one will ever see the world quite the way we do. No-one can truly “walk in our shoes,” no matter how good their imagination. Life is sacred…and if we continue down this road, we are in serious peril of forgetting that crucial fact.
In conclusion, science can be ultimate hypocrisy, really. I remember Stephen Fry, one of my favourite comedians and a devastatingly intelligent man, pooh-poohing the idea that St Anthony (saint of lost items, among other things) could really lend a hand in finding something that had been mislaid. In a similar vein, he sent “new age” concepts, (such as astrology and tarot, for example), into Room 101 (a show where folk basically grumble about their pet hates, vying to have them obliterated by sending them into “Room 101”). But what interested me most was this: he referred to science as “true” magic.
He’s right. Science is right now saving lives and making the world a better place. Despite the science-is-evil tone of this rant, I don’t believe this for a second. Science is making it possible for people in Australia to read what I, in Scotland, believe. Science keeps people with diabetes, cancer, asthma and other diseases that would have been fatal in the past, alive, and not only alive but in a decent standard of life. Science is a tool, like the internet - it can be used for good or evil, it all depends on who’s using it. But when the people using it happen to be homo sapiens…duck and cover folks, there’s always one nutcase that doesn’t know when to stop.
But science is magic in another way. In ancient and not-so-ancient times, people looked to alchemy, astrology and magic to be able to control the world around them and explain why people were as they were. Fables and folklore tried to make sense of a chaotic world.
We’ve lost a lot of those beliefs and systems in the twenty-first century…so now, who do we turn to instead of magic to try to explain and control the world around us? To try and avoid the horrible, inevitable fact that the people (and animals) we love will eventually leave us, as we must one day leave those who love us?
Have we progressed? Hell no. We’re still trying to raise the dead.
And now, to lighten the mood (and give those of you sensible enough to skip the cut something decorative to look at) -look, quizzes!
You Are a Dreaming Soul
Your vivid emotions and imagination takes you awy from this world
So much so that you tend to live in your head most of the time
You have great dreams and ambitions that could be the envy of all...
But for you, following through with your dreams is a bit difficult
You are charming, endearing, and people tend to love you.
Forgiving and tolerant, you see the world through rose colored glasses.
Underneath it all, you have a ton of passion that you hide from others.
Always hopeful, you tend to expect positive outcomes in your life.
Souls you are most compatible with: Newborn Soul, Prophet Soul, and Traveler Soul
What Kind of Soul Are You?
You Are From Neptune
You are dreamy and mystical, with a natural psychic ability.
You love music, poetry, dance, and (most of all) the open sea.
Your soul is filled with possibilities, and your heart overflows with compassion.
You can be in a room full of friendly people and feel all alone.
If you don't get carried away with one idea, your spiritual nature will see you through anything.
What Planet Are You From?
I am sweet, like Sugar.
I am all sweetness and light; fluffy bunnies and dancing fairies; happiness and joy. Too much of me will make you sick. What Flavour Are You?
‘Tis the day for happiness, family and copious amounts of presents…so if you want to save the doom, gloom and politics for later, I’d advise you not to read any further. I’ll just say have a great day/enjoy sleeping off the after effects and leave it at that.
I’d have left this until a later date, but I’ll lose motivation if I do, and this is a topic I feel fairly strongly on.
I’ve put this behind a cut, because it is quite a serious downer, and I don’t want to be the one to ruin your day. Read on at your own discretion.
It was announced in the media today (24th December) that “Little Nicky,” the first commercially cloned cat, was delivered to his Texan owner. Therefore, it is an issue that contains capitalism, vivisection, animal rights, human rights, the great science debate and a large dollop of fairly mind-boggling philosophy.
Since I’m sick to death of essays that required me to research exactly what everyone else said before I even ventured an opinion of my own, this ain’t no science paper. It’s pure gut reaction and emotional reasoning, but contrary to what our scientist friends would have us think, that’s every bit as valid and valuable as statistics and analysis.
The core of the argument is really “Has science gone too far?” There now exists an animal - a living, breathing being, a cute fuzzy kitten - who was manufactured as a copy of a creature who had already existed, had already lived out its life. It was created by a company for profit, not for any more altruistic reasons (made painfully clear when the company voiced its hope to soon have the first cloned dog, as dogs were a more “lucrative” market).
A few years ago, one of our cats, Samson, was run over by a car. He dragged himself home in a superhuman effort comparable to his namesake, and was petted, fussed over and fed chicken before dying at the vet’s a couple of days later, despite efforts to save him. Samson was a gentle giant of a cat, a huge, lovable, black behemoth of a moggy with a tendency to drool when happy and a penchant for having his tummy tickled. Killed by some bastard who didn’t even stop to see what he’d hit, left to crawl home over two days with a two broken hind legs.
Before that, a similar fate befell TC - a stray cat who had wandered into our home and stayed there. He was hit by a car too, found the next morning by neighbours who just threw him in a dustbin, but who at least had the decency to come and inform us. TC was even more of a suck-up than Sam. TC would leave his food to come and sit on your lap, came when called, was forever supervising whatever went on in the garden. Wherever we were, TC was never far away, especially from Gran, who he adored.
Mitzi was the neighbour’s cat, but when her owner, the daughter of the family, moved away, she was pretty much abandoned. Like TC, feeding her out the back garden turned into her permanent residence at our house. Although fairly affectionate, she was reserved and ladylike, enjoying her privacy as well as a little TLC. She had to be put down when she grew so weak she could no longer eat.
Merry was queen of all she surveyed. She’d been the family pet before I was even born, and considered myself and my sisters as kittens who had to be kept in hand and taught where the boundaries lie (ie - “Pick me up and die.”) She was proud and aloof, and affection was strictly on her terms. My first cat, and probably responsible for my love of animals, Merry had to be put down at the respectable age of 19, when her body grew too weak and impaired for her spirit.
I loved my cats. I still do. And yes, I do hold out the belief that we’ll meet again.
What do you think I wouldn’t give to have them back with me? To have Samson lounging by the fire and keeping Corrie (currently asleep on top of the monitor) in line, Merry overseeing the cooking in the kitchen, Mitzi asleep on the bad and TC on my lap? What do you think I wouldn’t do to turn back the clock so that Dad never put TC out for the night that evening, or made sure I knew where Samson was before he disappeared?
Would I clone them? Not a chance.
You see, it wouldn’t be them. To clone them would be an insult to them and the part they played in my life, not to mention the new animal I was ordering to take their place. It wouldn’t matter how good the copy was, the clone would not be Samson, Merry, TC or Mitzi. It’d be a different cat, one with its own personality and its own life to forge. Doesn’t matter if it’s not sentient as humans understand it, it would have a right to live a different life than the creature whose DNA was used to create it, no matter whether it understood the philosophy of a such a right or not. I have no right to force them to conform to what I want them to be rather than what they are. That doesn’t just apply to clones of course - it’s a lesson stage/pageant mothers and pedigree breeders would do well to remember too.
Some of you might be alarmed that I put animals (pedigree cats/dogs) on the same level as humans (children). Guess what? This is exactly what science is doing right now. According to science, you’re as replaceable as the ewe that was used to clone Dolly the sheep.
Religion has been replaced by the new God of Science, and quite frankly, given Science’s credentials, I’ll stick to the dude born in a manger a couple of millennia ago. HE said all of us, human, animal and plant, are unique and special. Each one of us counts for something. (And don’t go fetching the anti-God brigade, I’ve got as much right to believe in God as any atheist has to not believe in God.) To the disciples of pure science (no, I don’t believe science itself is bad - see below) we’re all guinea pigs, every one of us viable test subjects for the experiment du jour. Don’t believe me? Go listen to these guys on TV, the ones who say those who even consider the possibility that science has gone too far as naysayers and dinosaurs.
Humans are insatiably curious. But the curiosity that’s ensured our evolution unfortunately didn’t appear to come with the capacity to say “Hang on a minute, is this really such a good idea?” We’re the equivalent of the toddler who won’t believe the cooker will hurt them until they put their hand on a hotplate and get burned. And even then, the toddler will likely learn from their mistake. Science pushes forward, yes, but it doesn’t stop to re-evaluate, doesn’t retrace its steps to start over again and avoid a potential disaster. Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught us the devastation caused by nuclear bombs; it didn’t stop us not only from making more of them, but developing them to cause even more destruction. Given our horrific track record from that escapade, do you really think “designer babies” are just a myth?
Imagine living life as a designer baby. To know that there was even a possibility that you had no say in who you were? It doesn’t matter whether that’s true or not, if it’s a consideration, that’s bad enough. That you might believe you had to meet required specifications in order to be viewed as a success story - if you become an actor when your parents wanted a pro-athlete, no cigar, better try again and hope the next kid works out. We’re insecure enough in this day and age without that becoming a factor.
There’s one thing designer babies and cloning have in common: they infringe on our basic right to be ourselves. “Designer” kids will be expected to meet their parents’ criteria for success, clones must walk in the footsteps of someone who is dead. Doesn’t that strike anyone else as more than a little morbid? (Is there something vaguely "Pet Shop of Horrors" - be careful what you wish for - in all of this, or am I just dreading the end of that series in January a little too much?)
This is nothing new. Cloning isn't progress, it's an attempt to recapture a past that we've lost - and a futile attempt at that. And palmistry, astrology, and tarot have all tried to define who we are for centuries, when who we are isn’t really something we can define. But no science claims it can create a person (person!) who can be defined, whose character will be decided by other people. We try to rationalise existence through methods we’re too naïve to understand, and too irresponsible to control.
I am Jennifer. I am a very specific Jennifer, different to everyone else with that name in the past, present and future. I am who I am through a mix of DNA, life experience, perception and something else far more difficult to define, whether you call it my spirit, my personality or my soul. I hold some views that are the same as my parents’, some that are drastically different. I have personality traits that emulate them, others that don’t fit in anywhere. Maybe they sometimes wish I was more dynamic, or more practical, but I’m not, and they accept that because it’s who I am. The fact that my personality deviates from “standard” doesn’t make me imperfect, it makes me unique.
Little Nicky’s owner says his personality is exactly the same as his predecessor’s. I seriously doubt that’s even possible. Worse, what happens when those difference become apparent? What if the original Nicky would sit on her lap, but the new Nicky won’t stay there for more than two seconds? What if one liked chicken and the other despises it? Those are not categories that make or break the measurement of success in life, but for Little Nicky, any attempt to create his own personality will be viewed as “failing” to meet requirements (and this is a cat we’re talking about people, so he’s got no idea what’s expected of him) and possibly sharply “corrected.” It’s like the pedigrees that have existed for years, where colour variation or skeletal structure is the difference between a blue ribbon and being put down. But now it’s moving on to deciding what is “acceptable” in an animal’s personality. That’s just wrong - my Corrie may be a prize git when he wants to be, and sometimes I wistfully wish he were a little more affectionate, but I wouldn’t change him for all the money in the world.
We just don’t have a right to do that! Who are we to judge what’s perfect and what’s not? We can’t even be relied upon to make our minds up for more than two minutes! Look at the standards of female beauty over the ages for crying out loud - humans (males in particular) cannot stick to a decision!
I understand why Little Nicky’s owner did what she did, presuming she’s acting on emotion and not curiosity. She had a pet she loved, a pet that was with her for 17 years. Then he died, and she wanted him back. That’s not evil or feckless, that’s human. The fact that she couldn’t give her real name for fear of violent reprisals is sad (come on people, can’t we have a reasonable debate without killing each other?). Whatever the decision, that little cat is now alive and has a right to exist. But there were scientists who stood to make money out of her wish to have her pet back. They ended up with a ridiculous amount of money by taking advantage of a woman’s love for her pet.
You can see how the argument goes in circles. That the kitty lives proves he has a right to exist. But if we say cloning is wrong, does that mean the creatures who would theoretically be cloned do not have a right to exist? Science would argue that to deny them existence is wrong, which is similar to the Catholic church’s stance on contraception that says you deny a child that might be born the right to exist if you use contracetion, but then science generally never agrees with the church and…anyone else getting a headache?
We’re on dangerous ground here. Religious convictions/lack thereof aside, most of us have a high regard for freedom and individuality. Even people like me who can’t stand children ponder the mystery of what seems no more than a chemical reaction taking on a personality, making decisions, dreaming, loving people, leading a totally unique life. Stroppy teenagers are right: no-one can truly understand us. We are so diverse, so individual, so magical, than no-one will ever see the world quite the way we do. No-one can truly “walk in our shoes,” no matter how good their imagination. Life is sacred…and if we continue down this road, we are in serious peril of forgetting that crucial fact.
In conclusion, science can be ultimate hypocrisy, really. I remember Stephen Fry, one of my favourite comedians and a devastatingly intelligent man, pooh-poohing the idea that St Anthony (saint of lost items, among other things) could really lend a hand in finding something that had been mislaid. In a similar vein, he sent “new age” concepts, (such as astrology and tarot, for example), into Room 101 (a show where folk basically grumble about their pet hates, vying to have them obliterated by sending them into “Room 101”). But what interested me most was this: he referred to science as “true” magic.
He’s right. Science is right now saving lives and making the world a better place. Despite the science-is-evil tone of this rant, I don’t believe this for a second. Science is making it possible for people in Australia to read what I, in Scotland, believe. Science keeps people with diabetes, cancer, asthma and other diseases that would have been fatal in the past, alive, and not only alive but in a decent standard of life. Science is a tool, like the internet - it can be used for good or evil, it all depends on who’s using it. But when the people using it happen to be homo sapiens…duck and cover folks, there’s always one nutcase that doesn’t know when to stop.
But science is magic in another way. In ancient and not-so-ancient times, people looked to alchemy, astrology and magic to be able to control the world around them and explain why people were as they were. Fables and folklore tried to make sense of a chaotic world.
We’ve lost a lot of those beliefs and systems in the twenty-first century…so now, who do we turn to instead of magic to try to explain and control the world around us? To try and avoid the horrible, inevitable fact that the people (and animals) we love will eventually leave us, as we must one day leave those who love us?
Have we progressed? Hell no. We’re still trying to raise the dead.
And now, to lighten the mood (and give those of you sensible enough to skip the cut something decorative to look at) -look, quizzes!
You Are a Dreaming Soul
Your vivid emotions and imagination takes you awy from this world
So much so that you tend to live in your head most of the time
You have great dreams and ambitions that could be the envy of all...
But for you, following through with your dreams is a bit difficult
You are charming, endearing, and people tend to love you.
Forgiving and tolerant, you see the world through rose colored glasses.
Underneath it all, you have a ton of passion that you hide from others.
Always hopeful, you tend to expect positive outcomes in your life.
Souls you are most compatible with: Newborn Soul, Prophet Soul, and Traveler Soul
What Kind of Soul Are You?
You Are From Neptune
You are dreamy and mystical, with a natural psychic ability.
You love music, poetry, dance, and (most of all) the open sea.
Your soul is filled with possibilities, and your heart overflows with compassion.
You can be in a room full of friendly people and feel all alone.
If you don't get carried away with one idea, your spiritual nature will see you through anything.
What Planet Are You From?
I am sweet, like Sugar.
I am all sweetness and light; fluffy bunnies and dancing fairies; happiness and joy. Too much of me will make you sick. What Flavour Are You?