When asked the question of whether or not scientific knowledge should be boundless, I can't help, but to wonder why it wouldn't be. Everything that I can think of that has to do with science such as coming up with cures for diseases, being able to re-create a human being and its parts. Being able to choose whether or not your child will be a boy or a girl, have blonde or brown hair or blue eyes or green eyes is, as far as I'm concerned, extremely beneficial. I don't see anything wrong with cloning either.
What's the big deal anyway, it's not like you are going to have a bunch of look-a-likes running around. It is going to cost way too much money to get someone or something cloned. I have to throw in an argument from the other side and Mary Shelly said it in her novel, Frankenstein, "If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind." (233) How could she say the study doesn't benefit the mind? We've always said that we learn from our mistakes haven't we? If the wrong person should somehow receive or get a hold of the technology and scientific methods to cloning, then it could definitely be a dangerous thing not benefiting. They could somehow regenerate all of the world's most evil creatures if he or she wanted a world of anarchy. They could single handedly become ruler of the earth. Of course, it would take a long time for those clones to grow up and become adults capable of creating such putrid crime.
But, until then I think that all cloning is doing is making us more aware of how the human body works and that is only going to lead to more cures for diseases. The quest for cures and other scientific solutions shouldn't be held back. They should do what ever is necessary to find the solutions to all of the worlds many problems. Mary Shelly stated that, "If no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved: Caesar would have spared his country: America would have been discovered more gradually: and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed." (233) I think what she is saying is that if nobody were to do things that, at the time they didn't know, would hurt them in the long run, then they wouldn't be finding new things out all the time. Such as, finding solutions to problems and cures for diseases. J. Michael Bishop, says in his article titled, "Enemies of Promise," "We live in an age of scientific triumph. Science has solved many of nature's puzzles and greatly enlarged human knowledge. And the fruits of scientific inquiry have vastly improved human welfare. Yet despite theses proud achievements, science today is increasingly mistrusted and under attack." (237)
I see where he comes from on this because you look at all the people out there who...