The Earth’s people and states’ governments, bravo!
Are we grasping feelings of defense as we divide more? I hope you are getting the metaphorical recount of staff around those borders as only an incongruity. Our real problem is that nobody believes anybody. Expanding neighboring borders without fencing is an unwise idea. It’s always only after the collective trouble that we talk to each to other about resetting our coexistence. Why didn’t common logic show us that two-legged and two-armed individuals must give breathing space to others? Even our martyred history gives examples of justifying the international law the people don’t know the whole truth. However, the people have been informed that, for many centuries, governments have exercised the triviality of physical power. It is a famous method of coercion. Perhaps, it can even be referenced as the best one. Ask our elders, and they will teach us we are clever before stern disputes come. But, when we talk by the power of the sword, we only later admit the strangeness of the human spirit to enhance any weapons. And it has no end. With every next decade, we learn new skills to tear each other apart. How, in a philosophical sense, does this sound to you? A neighbor across the river tells the other neighbor, “Hey you, in a few weeks I’ll kill you with a Cyber tonic speed rocket!” What? Is that again sarcasm and bitterness? Yes. Is that normal for modern competition to go for the fastidious kill? Sure. But, as we try to score it, we are more in awe when it happens with explicit consciousness. And please don’t blame me for digressing from the main theme. I need to assure you that modern border lines, sophisticated armament, and belief of many—in a common sense—appears to be a major part of coexistence. Can you assume that border guards (believers, atheists) of any country take military duties—before they kill—to protect their border and say, “God, help this day run quietly? I don’t want to be killed first.”
Is that only our fear? No. When you take all our simulated barbed-wire borderlines and add restless arms and divide it on the constant compulsion of human beings, you get a stirring in the coterie tale about our historical or modern coexistence. And no one likes to admit that as truth. Isn’t this a mystery of humankind’s cogitating? Why do we let improbable upheaval happen, and later, with vehement grief, think about how to fix the problem and never allow it again? In fact, losing loved ones in any occurred conflict is an incurable moral wound for families. But contemporaries behave as if it does not concern them. And the reason is, the loss of many lives is forgotten fast. An adage: “When you are blind to the historical examples, you will learn about its reality in pain.” People read only by their own experience. Once again, I’d like you to admit the logo-root “Alignment of Circles” as a decisive contest. I suppose you’ve seen the curved wheel of a bicycle. But now, can you imagine our chronological past and current way of life as one huge, twisted wheel spinning in time and space on high speed? I trust you find that comparable to the rounds of our social turmoil.
Could it be an example of scenic civil war in the native blood country?
Can it be an annexationist colonial invasion for someone different’s dominance?
Can it be that this untried madcap idea starts dexterous carnage of each other afresh? Let's assume all responses come closer only if we uncover an outflow from a trap-condition of the
ALIGNMENT of CIRCLES and stop it.
Why do we dislike learning what life circuits have been bent or squashed? Why do our distresses about sullied faults, come so late? Or, do we become real brothers and sisters only to rise, win, and again repeat, feckless moves toward a moral abyss? I presume you are not surprised by such rationales? I guess not. As you have discovered many of them, your adult journey has started. Yes, you are able to detect how dangerous such inconsistencies are. And a central problem is that you can become traumatized by understanding that our general decision makers take over your life without facing moral, material, nor criminal liability. So, what would you do? I remember how one man avowed his answer as a memo: “Whatever occurs, if it doesn’t scratch my skin, I won’t care!” Isn’t today the time for someone’s rhetorical return, “But then who should care?” May I ask you again to think about the intricate logo-root: “Soul’s Zero Gravity” by an artistic approach with a row of alliteration and consonance.
Isolation is an insider, infidelity, and insignificance. Self-removal isn’t a satisfactory, sane solution. The focus on faithful facts fertilizes fortune of the future because it all works to disrupt your
SOUL’S ZERO GRAVITY—your apathy.
Yes. That is a bore to your neighbors, manifested as aloofness, disregard, insensibility, neutrality, and veniality. Doesn’t that mean, “you are not you, and you are nowhere,” since you feel nothing to another person? Whether you flew into the cosmos and are hovering in the stratospheric weightless, that’s explicable. But, while you stand firm on the ground, you must choose which direction will rouse your next footstep. If you can’t verify the right trail, there’s no motion. It’s never easy to articulate yourself correctly and practice to adjust things only for survival and don’t care about up growth. Yes, you will just be disappointed by how difficult it is to estimate the vitality of life’s balances, perchance disregarding your importance? But that obstacle is of the mind. Thus, may I ask what your physical step is?
For sure, you can tussle for rights. And it should be your whole decision. As a result, in your lifetime, you get many chances to realize why our constant “Alignment of Circle” does not teach us anything. Is that justified to shut you out from the outside world by not living anyone’s problems and just go yawning to yourself? No, and never will it be yes. Do you know why? It’s your internal feelings about the external world. During my over adventurous but thinkable life, I never met a person who agreed to be a victim. For instance, I proved there to be three types. The first says, “That crap doesn’t bother me at all.” The second always disavows, “My hut is on edge, and I saw nothing.” The final, and I guess the most vulnerable tells, “I was absent. What are talking about, man?” Well, by logic, you are probably asking why the third sort is the most unprotected. The answer is clear as glass. If you are self-absorbed by the vital problems of today, you’re not informed. This means you’re disarmed. And it’s a good reason to look at how you can defend your primary humanistic principles. Does it require seriously impersonal analysis? Yes. And once more, if it’s not frustrating to you, I’d like to provoke you to rethink:
Isn’t that a correction to consider concern for critical issues?
Doesn’t that break blunt behavior and blunders for any background?
It defends against delusions, despite doom, because you don’t qualify and elaborate the most pressing of today’s human problems that begs your
EXTRA THINKING about involvement.
Although you already assigned yourself to this line of symbolical logo-roots as a touchstone about our actual public subsistence, would you to like again, if only for your own affirmation, rethink such ideas and answer:
Once you perceive how high a man can rise in creation and how low he can fall in attitude, could you reconsider life experience and appoint respectful or wrong steps directed by other people as
the ACTS of COEXISTENCE?
Does humankind always make incomprehensible errors and worry later about how to adjust everything back, even when it looks like the
ALIGNMENT of CIRCLES?
When you feel displeased with your small importance on Earth, is it a hard task for you not to compare your weighty actions to people with a complete indifference of others as they stay in a state
of SOUL’S ZERO GRAVITY—apathy?
Have you ever speculated what would happen if big trouble comes to your country, house, and family? What is your primary idea about it? Whatever your status is, would you agree that we stand stronger only in a hard times? Maybe that is our main problem: not listening, not getting involved, and doing nothing to prevent repeating a gory history. But from this point, I'd like to implore to the future generation and ask: will y
ou start constructing a new and better history by occupying
EXTRA THINKING about it?
5. What’s Left for Us?
If you will use the reasons:
CURIOUS INDIVIDUALS
HUMAN CLONES
CONCLUSIVE DOGMAS
MOCKING LAUGHTER
MOTHERLAND AS THE IDENTITY
LOSING INTEREST
it will help create a widened photograph about the controversy of human cloning as an approved or incomplete delay.
Crossroads.
Cloning is a delicate topic. What would you say about a carbon copy of your corpus and personality too? How would you feel about a duplicate of one individual’s face? The answer: you don’t know yet. You haven’t any guess about a replica of the soul with your spirit. Aren’t you surprised by such a question? How would you react to your facsimile if somebody pointed out, “Look at how your double absorbed all your likeness,” or “Would you like to get a twin—not from your mom?” I saw how my friends became confused by such questions.
Let’s think about this without looking for an opinion or solution. The reasons must receive weight for all such sensible approaches. While experimenters search by any cost to get the best model, society lets them work. Most of us don’t offer our flesh for those scientific probes. And, as genetic engineers hurry, the people don’t. Clones started from the exemplary sheep, Dolly. Even though the ewe died earlier than planned, the push to expand the industry saw rapid growth. A pig cloning factory in China continues to grow larger. The Arabian Emirates orders more and more camel clones. There will be no wonder if an erudite pioneer announces tomorrow that the barrier has been broken and personal cloning is available for continual use. Will you qualify the formula ‘For Use’ as uncommon and personal?
I suppose, whether you consider yourself an atheist or a firm believer of God, you may be indignant about human cloning. Even if it comes from a strict rejection, in the end, you arrive at your answer. The smartest way is not to drop into a rage. Demand to stop such trials with bodies can break the future of genetics. Especially when we consider that in our history, there have been enough dark and wild times. That’s why, as progressive people, we have to help accommodate scientific advancements. It always appears that protesters condemn experimentation and call it a venture for lunatics. So, would you like to clarify your key-reasons and answer:
Why doesn’t our modern culture approve of the creation of clones?
Why do people counter such originality with an immediate, open physical-emotional reaction 'Fie!?’
Will there ever be a deliberate opinion upon the matter? That is a scientific risk and those inventors
as CURIOUS INDIVIDUALS and deserve our trust.
The public doesn't like to consider it yet because there's a hitch—we are all afraid of speeding innovators. The pledge to bring humankind into the universes is still attractive, but as it approaches closer, a public opinion shows worry. But, that can be a matter of personal dignity. Can someone guarantee that this process has more than only marginal goals? Wouldn’t people like it if humans duplicated in secret? The richest would keep their level of business for the upper class. The crowd doesn’t yet think about conveying clones for military uses as super-soldiers. Do you agree with such dramatic deliverance? However, you have to believe in yourself and agree with yourself: while disputes about humanoid reproduction are still flying through the air, you don’t know what your reaction to it will be tomorrow. Have we righted demand from those scientists for more information on what to expect? Yes. We feel an obligation to know everything about a creature. But for us, they are not just new organisms arriving from science. For us, that moving object can knock on your door. We just need to understand: did it arrive with bad or good intention? It also raises concerns right away with the governments of various countries. And no doubt, producers of such material will promote chip-implants in the humanoid organs to pick up the level of material. However, there is no guarantee for honest agreements and security. Isn’t that a hazard? Today, we differentiate bio-digital nanotechnologies with no suggestion. Is that an exemplary human or a robot? Would people teach clones about their traits? Yes? Would people feel clones have better health? Yes? And how does the phrase, “better than human” sound to you? I assume it brings only tedious anxiety. Is such repetition of the man displeasing? I deduce we didn’t all conceive that yet. But, I’d like to engage you again to rethink the topic and use a line of refreshing opinions:
The reports of today’s explorations don’t draw a full picture.
People still assume clones to be new-fangled creatures and touch on it by saying in pain, “We need to clone the human soul, but not cultivate a body-contestant.”
And, the most progressive of us, must treat such an affair as the newest of nonsense not yet nailed into cool heads. It's a mystery and whoever approves
HUMAN CLONING is our fear and hope.
It’s hazy anticipation that might declare yes, and soon. Yes, we will vote for human cloning but only to prolong our lives. And while it applies to the unknown, most of us don’t allow researchers to even continue paving roads. But as an appointee of our nature, the objections have not yet been declared on the streets. An official church closed questions already, declaring no human cloning at all. From this point, would you like create a set of metaphorical expressions by saying:
We’re not yet ready to humanize new bodies as creatures with a state of mind such as love, joy, anger, and hate.
We don’t have the right demand from scientists, but we’d like to ask them (sorry for irony) to craft a new breed with recognition of our best beliefs.
We are not sure if we should create good care and neighborly manners with them, or how they will test our compassion to God, because our compassion and value, called
CONCLUSIVE DOGMAS, work for us.
Any dogma grounded: what do people believe and how must they follow worship? Whatever religion comes to practice, a procedure of private or collective praying became the foundation of the church’s dogmas. And while people think about which liberal actions would help, the straightforward commandment of honor your father and mother can strike a clone’s mind. He can make a precise legal demand, “Who were my parents?” He could force us to verify what, ‘don’t kill, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, and don’t bear false witness against your neighbor’ mean. Clones may get confused and ask, “What is murder, adultery, and theft? As I am not a regular person, I can argue with a neighbor and charge him for teasing me about being a shoddy re-illustration of a despicable idiot.” It seems in the new conditions, people must gain proper knowledge. Which dramatic effect can occur? It helps conclude life preservation. Or the crowd has to contrive rules of acting as if “recreated bodies” prefer unsafe points. So, let’s visualize prospects:
Will a clone stop and laugh when he sees sensible sorrow? Will a clone follow a civilized concurrence?
Will clones hinder any progress with a horrible hatred, and even humiliation, or will they react to our world with a
MOCKING LAUGHTER as unseen heehaw?
What could that laugh mean? Is that ironical, sneering, meticulous, regardless, hysterical “ha-ha-ha” about any human dogmas? Yes, it can be. Have you ever seen what comes up after the insane laughter of an angry person? I have seen only impulsive actions. And that is a danger. You don’t know what to expect. But, for the human clone, it might rise to significant protest for all urgent questions: what about us? Will we fall in larger wonder if such a man’s 'facsimile' moves toward demand? Do you believe he has the right to ask:
Am I a sibling to the man whom I repeat?
Can I show up as an independent body?
Am I righted for connections with others?
Who are my parents? When can I see them?
Can I assume a laboratory is my birthplace?
Oh, we understand that one day he can combine a bunch of such questions. And as a creature with its own mind, he could also claim the
lab as his coming to the
MOTHERLAND of his IDENTITY as all motives.
The response I found in a New York subway: I was on the way from upper Manhattan to downtown Brooklyn and got into a casual conversation about clones. It changed my opinion in all senses. While I tried to find a free seat, I recognized a priest who often used the same fourth car of the train. He held a book I had read, and that sparked my curiosity.
“Good evening, Father. I see in your hands a plain black cover. Is this Human Dignity and Human Cloning by Leon Kass?”
“How do you know?” he nodded in courtesy. “Is that so extraordinary seeing a priest with this book?”
“Yes, but you have an obvious interest,” I answered unruffled. “It appears intriguing. I never expected that.”
“I understand, but I don’t know how you became informed about such issues. My faith isn’t in strict opposition to clones.”
“Oh, that is new for me.”
“I believe, as a secular man, you might have heard the church only condemns it.”
“Yes, for sure.”
“Can I become your first mistake?”
“Sorry, but I…”
“Don’t worry. While reading this book, I counted on bioethic ideas and based my opinion. So far, it’s still secret. I plan to do big research on the issue.”
“Sorry, what’s that?”
“In person, I’m not distinguishing human cloning as a danger.”
Figures of the One Must Go Page 7