"Clone" would have always been a hit. No matter when it shows up on news, debate and questions raised either. Maybe it is because people barely know about it, even not in the slightest? However, sometimes, I thought the real reason might be opposite, which is people could comprehend it in a instinct way-- "clone" is too bizarre to suit to humans' common sense as well as anti-nature rules. That is the point why it is so controversial. Some researchers claim that clone is one part of gene researching, which will help people conquer terminal illnesses, which sounds encouraging and fantastic. I believe it barely could be possible. There is no way for human becoming unrivaled and totally immunized to the nature. As Ihde puts it,"Insofar as I use or employ a technology, I am used by and employed by that technology as well." When you apply something, you will definitely would be controlled and limited by something, let alone the nature. We live inside the nature, composed with heterogeneous species and diverse agents of interpretation, which means there is no way for us to totally keep and maintain personal integrity and purity. Like in the later part of this reading (P. 250), "Never purely themselves, things are compound; they are made up of combinations of other things coordinated to magnify power, to make something happen, to engage the world, to risk fleshly acts of interpretation." Conquer all diseases and make a disease-free world? Want to live forever? Forget about it. Sometimes, I really feel perplexed about what are gene researchers doing? We only could see and believe what we have seen and heard. Any side effects might cause disasters? Who knows? Like genetically modified food.
Also, about using clone for saving the endangered species sounds really pathetic to me. If a species extinct because of human activity, which means it no longer could bear the environment human influenced. Even if human recreate it again by using gene tech, it should be extinct again because the gene is derived from former existence. Does that make any sense? Wonder is there no other better way to save species and keep them diverse and prosperous? Of course there is! Just do not count it on gene tech, because it is unsustainable at all, let alone the potential and unknown risks.
I would like to quote a paragraph In Page. 156 as the end.
“I’d like to end with this thought: great companion animals are like works of art. . . . Once we’ve identified these masterpieces, then arguably it’s not just reasonable but imperative that we capture their unique genetic endowments before they’re gone— just as we would rescue great works of art from a burning museum.”
I am not sure whether you could detect a note of pathetic irony like what I said above. However, I do. In my opinion, what we have to do is not always be prepared to be the first one to break into the fire spot to save all these master pieces, instead, we have to behave ourselves and comply with "NO SMOKING" policy strictly and without any exception to keep these masterpieces along with us.